Total Posts:97|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Resurrection of Christ is rational

Larry4811
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 10:45:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hi,

As a Christian I believe the resurrection of Christ to be a factual historical event.

I also believe the Bible to be God's authoritative message to man. That is what philosophers might call a "basic" belief or a presupposition.

But the Christian claim is that the resurrection of Christ took place in a real place at a real time. The New Testament is a collection of documents that contains eyewitness and other evidences of that singular event.

Larry
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 1:47:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 10:45:22 PM, Larry4811 wrote:
Hi,

As a Christian I believe the resurrection of Christ to be a factual historical event.

I also believe the Bible to be God's authoritative message to man. That is what philosophers might call a "basic" belief or a presupposition.

But the Christian claim is that the resurrection of Christ took place in a real place at a real time. The New Testament is a collection of documents that contains eyewitness and other evidences of that singular event.

Larry
The biblical jebus is a 100% human Historical MYTH!

(Source: http://atheisttoolbox.com...)

Were the NT Gospels written by eye witnesses?

There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gospels were written by eye witnesses of the events described in them.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 1:56:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 1:47:39 AM, Composer wrote:
At 4/3/2014 10:45:22 PM, Larry4811 wrote:
Hi,

As a Christian I believe the resurrection of Christ to be a factual historical event.

I also believe the Bible to be God's authoritative message to man. That is what philosophers might call a "basic" belief or a presupposition.

But the Christian claim is that the resurrection of Christ took place in a real place at a real time. The New Testament is a collection of documents that contains eyewitness and other evidences of that singular event.

Larry
The biblical jebus is a 100% human Historical MYTH!

(Source: http://atheisttoolbox.com...)

Were the NT Gospels written by eye witnesses?

There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gospels were written by eye witnesses of the events described in them.

I don't understand what you mean...
: 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.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 3:13:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 1:47:39 AM, Composer wrote:
At 4/3/2014 10:45:22 PM, Larry4811 wrote:
Hi,

As a Christian I believe the resurrection of Christ to be a factual historical event.

I also believe the Bible to be God's authoritative message to man. That is what philosophers might call a "basic" belief or a presupposition.

But the Christian claim is that the resurrection of Christ took place in a real place at a real time. The New Testament is a collection of documents that contains eyewitness and other evidences of that singular event.

Larry
The biblical jebus is a 100% human Historical MYTH!

(Source: http://atheisttoolbox.com...)

Were the NT Gospels written by eye witnesses?

There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gospels were written by eye witnesses of the events described in them.

Wow! Can we praise simple ignorance! Amen brother! Lets be ignorant!

So, rather than blindly accepting a self fulfilling bit propaganda from an atheist source, lets look at ... scholarship! Shocking idea, I know....

At any rate the modern genesis of the Jesus Myth is actually the aptly named, "Jesus Myth," by GA Wells - he does have a Ph.D ... its just in German. He is NOT a historian.

His book serves as the basis of that article you wrote, you should probably try to read his book, where you would quickly discovers that is a convoluted twist of conflicting standards wherein the only goal is to DENY the evidence of Christ. Its so bad the GA Wells had to retract his claims in the book - even to retain his credentials .... in German - it was THAT serious an assault on the principles of academia.

Indeed the oft quoted agnostic historian went from hero to much maligned anti-hero when he published: Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth

"Like Freke & Gandy, Ehrman is occasionally right. For example, that many mythicists are incompetent or do not argue their case well; or that they are often fanatically unmoved by evidence and logic and won"t abandon their theory no matter what is presented them. But historicity proponents are sometimes just as guilty of these faults"Ehrman included, as I"ll demonstrate below. Ehrman will also decry bad mythicist literature, quite rightly, as "filled with patently false information and inconsistencies" (p. 27), but as we shall see, this sentence also describes Ehrman"s book. In fact, there are so many errors and fallacies and questionably worded statements in his book that documenting them all would produce a monstrously long article."

http://freethoughtblogs.com...

He then goes on to pick out points of minutia that have no real bearing on the the main evidence for Jesus. Really, he begins with a semantic argument about whether or not a statute f Saint Peter is in the Vatican, and DELIBERATELY misrepresents Erhman's take that the statue isn't 'penis nose shaped' into a farcical claim that Erhman was claiming there is no statue. This is par for the course for a man who similarly misrepresented Anthony Flews conversion, to the point where Flew had to publicly refute Carrier's claims.

Additionally, as we see above, he does it again with Earl Doherty's claims, where Erhman points out that there is NO scholarly support for his Doherty's thesis - Carrier denies this and lists ... no one who actually supports Doherty's thesis. Not a one.

In fact, the reality is: Given the broad consensus against the Jesus Myth, it has been left to a few non-professional commentators, such as Earl Doherty and GA Wells to question Jesus' existence. Despite their vigorous efforts, they have failed, and continue to fail, to even give their position respectability in the broader academic community.

http://www.bede.org.uk...

So, what do ACTUAL atheist period scholars think?

Michael Grant?
http://www.goodreads.com...

Agh, historical jesus is real? Yep.

William Durant?
http://www.goodreads.com...

Oh, historical Jesus is quite real as well? Odd that.

http://books.google.it...

http://books.google.it...

... and many more.

And as we see with Carrier, it takes great twists of both integrity and logic to continue to believe that Jesus was a Myth. In fact, its gotten so out of hand that historians, and I quote, "Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question."

http://www.bede.org.uk...

And yet, young impressionable and completely ignorant atheists continue to leap in ignorance upon the ramblings of their own propaganda as if its 'proof' ... even as the educated and learned have dismissed the claims as ... literally ... bizarre.

Perhaps you would like to sign up for the Earth being flat based on this?

http://theflatearthsociety.org...

Curiously, they ALSO call themselves free thinkers ... odd.

So what is at play here? Other than obvious confirmation bias, as in I very critically went looking for anything that supported my idea and then failed to look at with any kind of reasoning ... the intellectual equivalent of running around showing everyone a lollipop. There is also I think a few demonstrative quotes:

"There's a sucker born every minute!" PT Barnum/David Hannum

"If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." Joseph Goebbels (Nazi Germany's propaganda minster)
Yoshi
Posts: 71
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 7:53:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 3:13:35 AM, neutral wrote:
-Snip-

Sure, there's a good chance a Jesus existed.

What now? does that mean he walked on water, water to wine, so on.

Not really, there's just good reason to assume that a guy who preached stories existed called Jesus.

"Wow! Can we praise simple ignorance! Amen brother! Lets be ignorant!"

It's actually true, there's no actual evidence to support an eye witness account of miracles and so on being performed, even if the book claims of such miracles, if there's nothing to go on in regards to verifiable evidence, we can't assume miracles.

"So, rather than blindly accepting a self fulfilling bit propaganda from an atheist source, lets look at ... scholarship! Shocking idea, I know...."

What "Atheist Source" is denying the probability that a Jesus once existed? None because they'd most likely be referring to that of which needs a lot of evidence to claim true and that would be the miracles and absurd stories that are inconsistent with what we know in reality.
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 7:57:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Jeez, what a bunch of blather and complete Church propaganda without a shred of historical evidence to support it. There are no eye-witnesses of Jesus Christ who is a literary creation, not a human being at all but a spiritual being. The Gospels even admit this, that Jesus was not a human being "born of women".

"Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."--Mt 11:11

A most important verse that almost all Christians overlook its subtle meaning. Jesus tells us indirectly he is not a human being but one of the kingdom of heaven, i.e. a spiritual being, because as the verse says, John the Baptist is the greatest of naturally born men (from women).

Resurrection belief only makes sense in the Gnostic way which matches N.D.E. experiences while the Bible stories give believers a crock of baloney about heaven. Believe the reported experiences over the religious propaganda, I mean, who would want to go to a crystal cube "heaven" 14 miles on a side to sing songs 24/7 to BIG FATHER on a throne? Who's idea of heaven is that? That's hell because you're essentially turned into a robot, a machine playing an endless tape. No, Gnostic idea of the Spirit of Jesus resurrecting matches what people report. But the whole Church authority just HAD to have Jesus bodily resurrected as the key to hypnotizing Pauline Christians into loyalty to Pauline Christian priests and their Church. And their jobs. Pauline Christians are told that they MUST believe the resurrection story or they are not Christians and the whole deal is a lie. That's coercion in religion of course, psychological coercion, "Believe" or Face Hell. So Christians are taught to "believe" in a totally irrational event nobody on earth has been able to verify ever happened.

As a Celestial Torah Christian teacher, I highly recommend Christians consider the Talmud's nasty oblique references to a "Yeishu ben Pantera" who's biography matches that of Jesus Christ remarkably well, as does Yeishu's run in with Jewish authorities over his complaints about lack of forgiveness being taught by rabbis. Yeishu and his five disciples met their end in the prescribed Jewish law way, unlike Jesus. Yeishu was stoned to death and his body hung on a tree, like Paul reports of Jesus in Gal 3:13.

Jesus Christ is a Spirit Being, a Great Spirit, thee Great Spirit now of God since being resurrected back to heaven where He came from. As a spiritual being.
justin.graves
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 8:03:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm a Christian and I think the resurrection was irrational: if it was rational, why would it be such a big deal?
-Justin K. Graves, Demon Hunter
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 11:20:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 3:13:35 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/4/2014 1:47:39 AM, Composer wrote:
At 4/3/2014 10:45:22 PM, Larry4811 wrote:
Hi,

As a Christian I believe the resurrection of Christ to be a factual historical event.

I also believe the Bible to be God's authoritative message to man. That is what philosophers might call a "basic" belief or a presupposition.

But the Christian claim is that the resurrection of Christ took place in a real place at a real time. The New Testament is a collection of documents that contains eyewitness and other evidences of that singular event.

Larry
The biblical jebus is a 100% human Historical MYTH!

(Source: http://atheisttoolbox.com...)

Were the NT Gospels written by eye witnesses?

There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gospels were written by eye witnesses of the events described in them.

Wow! Can we praise simple ignorance! Amen brother! Lets be ignorant!

So, rather than blindly accepting a self fulfilling bit propaganda from an atheist source, lets look at ... scholarship! Shocking idea, I know....

At any rate the modern genesis of the Jesus Myth is actually the aptly named, "Jesus Myth," by GA Wells - he does have a Ph.D ... its just in German. He is NOT a historian.

His book serves as the basis of that article you wrote, you should probably try to read his book, where you would quickly discovers that is a convoluted twist of conflicting standards wherein the only goal is to DENY the evidence of Christ. Its so bad the GA Wells had to retract his claims in the book - even to retain his credentials .... in German - it was THAT serious an assault on the principles of academia.

Indeed the oft quoted agnostic historian went from hero to much maligned anti-hero when he published: Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth

"Like Freke & Gandy, Ehrman is occasionally right. For example, that many mythicists are incompetent or do not argue their case well; or that they are often fanatically unmoved by evidence and logic and won"t abandon their theory no matter what is presented them. But historicity proponents are sometimes just as guilty of these faults"Ehrman included, as I"ll demonstrate below. Ehrman will also decry bad mythicist literature, quite rightly, as "filled with patently false information and inconsistencies" (p. 27), but as we shall see, this sentence also describes Ehrman"s book. In fact, there are so many errors and fallacies and questionably worded statements in his book that documenting them all would produce a monstrously long article."

http://freethoughtblogs.com...

He then goes on to pick out points of minutia that have no real bearing on the the main evidence for Jesus. Really, he begins with a semantic argument about whether or not a statute f Saint Peter is in the Vatican, and DELIBERATELY misrepresents Erhman's take that the statue isn't 'penis nose shaped' into a farcical claim that Erhman was claiming there is no statue. This is par for the course for a man who similarly misrepresented Anthony Flews conversion, to the point where Flew had to publicly refute Carrier's claims.

Additionally, as we see above, he does it again with Earl Doherty's claims, where Erhman points out that there is NO scholarly support for his Doherty's thesis - Carrier denies this and lists ... no one who actually supports Doherty's thesis. Not a one.

In fact, the reality is: Given the broad consensus against the Jesus Myth, it has been left to a few non-professional commentators, such as Earl Doherty and GA Wells to question Jesus' existence. Despite their vigorous efforts, they have failed, and continue to fail, to even give their position respectability in the broader academic community.

http://www.bede.org.uk...

So, what do ACTUAL atheist period scholars think?

Michael Grant?
http://www.goodreads.com...

Agh, historical jesus is real? Yep.

William Durant?
http://www.goodreads.com...

Oh, historical Jesus is quite real as well? Odd that.

http://books.google.it...

http://books.google.it...

... and many more.

And as we see with Carrier, it takes great twists of both integrity and logic to continue to believe that Jesus was a Myth. In fact, its gotten so out of hand that historians, and I quote, "Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question."

http://www.bede.org.uk...

And yet, young impressionable and completely ignorant atheists continue to leap in ignorance upon the ramblings of their own propaganda as if its 'proof' ... even as the educated and learned have dismissed the claims as ... literally ... bizarre.

Perhaps you would like to sign up for the Earth being flat based on this?

http://theflatearthsociety.org...

Curiously, they ALSO call themselves free thinkers ... odd.

So what is at play here? Other than obvious confirmation bias, as in I very critically went looking for anything that supported my idea and then failed to look at with any kind of reasoning ... the intellectual equivalent of running around showing everyone a lollipop. There is also I think a few demonstrative quotes:

"There's a sucker born every minute!" PT Barnum/David Hannum

"If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." Joseph Goebbels (Nazi Germany's propaganda minster)

That's typical of you neutral. You take the question of whether jesus was resurrected, turn it into the question of whether he existed or not, then write a long off-topic rant where you manage to insult everyone who doesn't subscribe to your theory.

Is it because you have had to claim to have risen above the supernatural in your scramble to pretent to embrace science? Is a human being coming back to life like magic, just over the top for you? If it isn't it should be!

I bet you go with the 'walking on water' nonsense too! You really are a literal believer no matter how much you try to pretend you have risen above it!

monty and jesus are watching you neutral and we're getting suspicious of your intentions.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 11:41:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 10:45:22 PM, Larry4811 wrote:
Hi,

As a Christian I believe the resurrection of Christ to be a factual historical event.

It is not a factual historical event.

I also believe the Bible to be God's authoritative message to man. That is what philosophers might call a "basic" belief or a presupposition.

Which version?Also, why do you believe that?

But the Christian claim is that the resurrection of Christ took place in a real place at a real time. The New Testament is a collection of documents that contains eyewitness and other evidences of that singular event.

Sorry, but the NT was not written by eye-witnesses.

The New Testament is made up of 27 different books:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation are the books that have various authors.
We also have 14 Pauline Epistles, but they are not all written by Paul:
Romans*, 1 Corinthians*, 2 Corinthians*, Galatians*, Philippians*, 1 Thessalonians*, Philemon*; 1 Timothy**, 2 Timothy**, Titus** (pastoral/pseudopigraphic); Ephesians***, Colossians***, 2 Thessalonians***, Hebrews (internally anonymous)

Pauline Epistles Key:
*=Undisputed, written by Paul
**=Modern Scholars agree are Forged
***=Scholars about evenly divided on if they are forged or not
Hebrews is thought by an overwhelming majority to be a forgery
We see 27 books in the New Testament, four are to be forged, and three are disputed on whether they are forged or not. Because of that, these books cannot be used as evidence. That leaves 20 books left in the New Testament to address.

Now, scholars agree that Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon are written by Paul. That is seven books from the New Testament. These cannot be used as evidence either. The reason is that Paul never met Jesus while Jesus supposedly lived, instead he met Jesus" spirit. If Paul is to be considered a witness of the life of Jesus then Jesus must have been the son of God in order to appear to Paul as a spirit.

This leaves us with 13 books out of 27 to address.

Now, not only did Paul never meet Jesus, but Luke even says so as well. If Luke did not meet Jesus, then that takes another book out as eye-witness testimony. Only 12 books left.

Now, we must address another part of the Gospels. How did they get their names? Pastors and Bishops will say that they are named after the authors, yet that is not accurate. The authors of the Gospels were anonymous, and the names attached were voted on centuries later. We do not know who wrote them, but we can find out things about them.

The apostles were Arabic speaking, not Greek like the books were written in. They were uneducated peasants and fisherman. They could not even write, and very few people knew how to write. The ones that knew how to read and write were all sons of the rich, rabbis would teach people how to read, but they would not teach people how to write. Peter and John are even said to be illiterate in Acts.

The authors of the Gospels were educated and Greek speakers, and they knew how to read and write.

The alleged authors of the Gospels and the real authors are different people. Not a single author of any book of the New Testament was an eyewitness to Jesus' birth, life, ministry, trial, or death. None of the New Testament authors claim to be a witness, and the books were written in 3rd person view not 1st.

This means we have taken out 3 more (since we already eliminated Luke) books. Only 9 of 27 are left. Acts of the Apostles, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation are all that are left.

Acts was anonymous, but thought to have been written by the author of Luke, which means that is not written by an eye-witness of Jesus either.

Revelation is written by a man named John, but we do not know if it is the apostle John or not, but scholars do not think it was.

John did not write 1, 2, or 3 John. These books were written by John"s followers, meaning they aren"t eye witnesses.

James is just referred to as James, which was a common name during the time. James, being as common of a name as it was, cannot be used as evidence as no one knows who wrote it.

Although the text identifies Peter as its author the language, dating, style, and structure of this letter has led many scholars to conclude that this letter is pseudonymous. Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author of this letter because the author had to have a formal education in rhetoric/philosophy and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language.

Jude is also currently in dispute on who the author was. Some say it was the apostle Jude, others say that it isn"t because the author of that letter does not identified himself as an apostle and refers to the apostles as a third party.

So, who wrote the NT?
Except for 7 of the 13 Pauline epistles, we really do not know. Saul/Paul wrote the [undisputed] epistles - earliest NT author, though he and "Luke" (in Acts) both say they never met Jesus. None of the canonical gospels were actually written by their "traditional" authors. Whoever was the author of Luke may have also written Acts. The author of Revelation was named John, but scholars agree that it is not the author of the Gospel of John.

Did the NT authors offer historically accurate testimony?
No, they contradict each other and extrabiblical history on some major points.

There are ~400,000 variations of the New Testament. The New Testament only has ~181,400 words. Even when looking at the oldest versions of the New Testament we can find it is obvious that it has been changed over time.

The oldest fragment of the New Testament is from the Gospel of John. It includes John 18:31-33 and 37-39 (about 3.5"x2.5"). It was dated to be 117-138 CE, 100 years after Jesus's death. It is a copy. The oldest complete New Testament is from the 4th century, ~300 years after Jesus' death. We do not have the original documents.

When was the New Testament written?
Paul wrote in the 50s C.E. (close to 51), but we only have copies of them. The earliest complete copy of any New Testament book comes from the 3rd century. The earliest complete New Testament dates to the 4th century. It is believed that the canonical gospels written between 70-95 CE (After the reliable years). Most scholars agree that all autographs of the canonical NT were written by ~110 CE.

Larry
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Larry4811
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 1:44:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
These are some pretty long posts!

Lots of detail but all of it is controversial depending on which scholars or which world view/ philosophical assumptions you make. Or the scholars adhere to.

Let's take it slow and try to figure this out another way.

According to the Old Testament anyone who hung on a tree was cursed of God.

So for the Christian message to spread it had to overcome that roadblock.

The Romans would not have paid any attention to someone who was executed by crucifixion because that was a slaves death.

Yet many Jews came to believe that Jesus is in fact God.

In an age when emperor worship was in vogue many came to worship as the only God, a man who had died in just that way.

How do you account for the fact that the message that Jesus is God resonated in the ancient world
among both Jews and Greek- Romans, given these facts?

Larry
Larry4811
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 2:12:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hi,

I also said :

"I also believe the Bible to be God's authoritative message to man. That is what philosophers might call a "basic" belief or a presupposition.

But the Christian claim is that the resurrection of Christ took place in a real place at a real time. The New Testament is a collection of documents that contains eyewitness and other evidences of that singular event."

In the First epistle of John the writer says:
1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life--

A commentary written by a believing scholar says:

"Numbering himself among these apostolic eyewitnesses, the author described this proclamation as one which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched..."

For myself, I don't see any reason why I should doubt what seems to me to be an honest statement. The writer says he considered himself an eyewitness.

It seems to me that from the earliest moments the claim for the resurrection was made , it was framed in ways that explicitly stated first hand personal experience.

Yet these people were telling what they knew could subject them to punishment, loss and possibly death.

But they obviously would have known what the truth was - they knew what they saw or experienced -

I think it is psychologically impossible for people to be willing to die for something they knew to be false - so I think it is rational to give them the benefit of the doubt.

To presume they were telling the truth.

That helps to explain why the Jews came to believe Jesus is God and the Greco-Romans also.

After all the claim had to overcome some extremely high barriers. I think we have to account for that.

Larry
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 2:46:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Rational people can't accept resurrection because we know that we are all mortals. Therefore, any modern Christian who has rejected the literal bible and can accept science and evolution, can't possibly believe in resurrection.

People like neutral can't just throw out what they choose and hang onto what's convenient for them. If they are going to be modern day Christians who have been forced to update and modernize their beliefs then they need to reject the supernatural completely and unequivocally. If they don't then they are walking right into a trap. Let's get it on neutral!

Let's face it, if you can bring dead people back to life then you can stuff two of all species into Noah's ark or even reject evolution completely.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 2:57:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 2:47:16 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/4/2014 7:57:31 AM, biomystic wrote:
There are no eye-witnesses of Jesus Christ

Apart from the Gospels, right?

Look at my comment above. The Gospels were not written by eye-witnesses.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 3:10:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 2:57:46 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 2:47:16 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/4/2014 7:57:31 AM, biomystic wrote:
There are no eye-witnesses of Jesus Christ

Apart from the Gospels, right?

Look at my comment above. The Gospels were not written by eye-witnesses.

Can you be sure of that? The website you linked to to prove the dates at which the gospels were written is hardly academic.

Most of the academic community believes the earliest Gospels to have been written circa. 70AD. It would have been possible for the original disciples to have written those gospels.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 3:14:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 3:10:13 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/4/2014 2:57:46 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 2:47:16 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/4/2014 7:57:31 AM, biomystic wrote:
There are no eye-witnesses of Jesus Christ

Apart from the Gospels, right?

Look at my comment above. The Gospels were not written by eye-witnesses.

Can you be sure of that? The website you linked to to prove the dates at which the gospels were written is hardly academic.

Oh excuse me, you didn't link to a website. The text you quoted looked similar to yours. This forum sucks. But my point still stands,

Most of the academic community believes the earliest Gospels to have been written circa. 70AD. It would have been possible for the original disciples to have written those gospels.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 3:24:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 3:14:48 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/4/2014 3:10:13 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/4/2014 2:57:46 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 2:47:16 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/4/2014 7:57:31 AM, biomystic wrote:
There are no eye-witnesses of Jesus Christ

Apart from the Gospels, right?

Look at my comment above. The Gospels were not written by eye-witnesses.

Can you be sure of that? The website you linked to to prove the dates at which the gospels were written is hardly academic.

Oh excuse me, you didn't link to a website. The text you quoted looked similar to yours. This forum sucks. But my point still stands,

Most of the academic community believes the earliest Gospels to have been written circa. 70AD. It would have been possible for the original disciples to have written those gospels.

At 70C.E. it would be too late for them to be the eye witnesses. The average lifespan of the time was 35-40 years. Jesus supposedly died about 33C.E. Unless the witnesses were 3 years old (earlier then the average earliest memories a person has, which is 3.5 years) they were not eye witnesses. Even if they were the memories would be from a time to early in their life for it to be able to be taken as accurate.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 5:28:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 10:45:22 PM, Larry4811 wrote:
Hi,

As a Christian I believe the resurrection of Christ to be a factual historical event.

I also believe the Bible to be God's authoritative message to man. That is what philosophers might call a "basic" belief or a presupposition.

But the Christian claim is that the resurrection of Christ took place in a real place at a real time. The New Testament is a collection of documents that contains eyewitness and other evidences of that singular event.

Larry

The resurrection of the invisible Christ is true but the flesh of this world are only illusions that appear to die during this first age. Illusions aren't real my friend.
Larry4811
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 10:17:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 3:24:02 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 3:14:48 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/4/2014 3:10:13 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/4/2014 2:57:46 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 2:47:16 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/4/2014 7:57:31 AM, biomystic wrote:
There are no eye-witnesses of Jesus Christ

Apart from the Gospels, right?

Look at my comment above. The Gospels were not written by eye-witnesses.

Can you be sure of that? The website you linked to to prove the dates at which the gospels were written is hardly academic.

Oh excuse me, you didn't link to a website. The text you quoted looked similar to yours. This forum sucks. But my point still stands,

Most of the academic community believes the earliest Gospels to have been written circa. 70AD. It would have been possible for the original disciples to have written those gospels.

At 70C.E. it would be too late for them to be the eye witnesses. The average lifespan of the time was 35-40 years. Jesus supposedly died about 33C.E. Unless the witnesses were 3 years old (earlier then the average earliest memories a person has, which is 3.5 years) they were not eye witnesses. Even if they were the memories would be from a time to early in their life for it to be able to be taken as accurate.

Paul's writings date from about 48AD " about 15 years after the event. Paul did confer with the original disciples. I Corinthians is recognized to be from Paul's pen and is one of his earliest writings.

Many scholars believe that 1 Corinthians 15:3 and following reflects a very early Christian baptismal creed .

1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
1Co 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
1Co 15:6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
1Co 15:8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
1Co 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.
1Co 15:11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
1Co 15:12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1Co 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
1Co 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
1Co 15:15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.

Also a good case can be made that the New Testament writers drew on oral tradition -

Follows is an excerpt:

"So, how did the Christian oral tradition work? Leading the charge in the modern study of ancient oral tradition as it relates to the study of Jesus is Prof James Dunn of the University of Durham (UK). Dunn has published a 1,000-page volume aptly titled Jesus Remembered. Here, he sets forth an impressive case for what he calls "informal, controlled oral tradition." Drawing on both biblical scholarship and modern studies in "orality" (how spoken traditions are maintained by cultures) Dunn emphasises that, while the Jesus tradition was probably not passed on in the manner of formal Jewish schools, it does show all the signs of having been strictly controlled in its central content.
From the very beginning"even during Jesus" lifetime"Christians were devoted to preserving and proclaiming everything they could take in of the stories and teachings of their leader. They continually repeated these traditions and celebrated, discussed and obeyed them. The very word "disciple," the key term for a follower of Jesus in the Gospels, literally means "learner." It implies a commitment to studying the words and deeds of the master.
In addition, certain individuals from among the disciples were charged with particular responsibility for protecting and passing on the Jesus tradition. These were called the "teachers." To quote Dunn:
Teachers, indeed, seem to have been the first regularly paid ministry within the earliest Christian movement. Why teachers? Why else than to serve as the congregation"s repository of oral tradition?" We should pause at this point to recall just how crucial teachers were to ancient communities. All who read these pages will have been bred to a society long accustomed to being able to rely on textbooks, encyclopaedias, and other reference works. But an ancient oral society had few if any such resources and had to rely instead on individuals whose role in their community was to function " as "a walking reference library."
Perhaps an analogy will help. The closest thing to oral tradition in modern culture would have to be pop music. If you are anything like me, you know by heart the words to a great many songs. We learnt these over the years, not by poring over the lyric sheet printed on the CD sleeve, but by listening to the songs over and over, singing along to them, performing them in the shower and maybe even crooning them with friends late at night. These songs lodged in our heads without us even trying. We are preservers of an "oral tradition."
I realise the analogy is not perfect: for one thing, the Jesus tradition was not set to music, and it certainly had more content than the Top 20 hits. But what the Jesus tradition lacked in tunefulness and brevity is more than made up for by the fact that it was first passed on in a truly aural culture. Those who preserved the stories and teachings of Jesus were well used to hearing important information and committing it to memory. It was the air they breathed, and we catch a whiff of this in the modern love for pop music. Illustrative of the aural environment in which Jesus taught and his disciples learnt is the fact that many of the stories and teachings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels contain ancient memory devices (called mnemonics) designed to enhance oral transmission. These include keyword repetition, punch lines, parallelism, humour, hyperbole and even rhyme.1"

John lived to be quite old and Papias, at least, said he wrote the works that were attributed to him.

Follows is an excerpt from a book:

"4-Facts from the New Testament - Encouragement from every New Testament book - Luke, John - John
The author of the Fourth Gospel was John, the son of Zebedee and Salome, the brother of James, in early life a Galilean fisherman, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ. In less than a hundred years after his death Christian writers living in different quarters of the world, whose writings are still extant, show us that this was the universal belief of the church. Indeed, the testimony to the authorship is stronger than can be furnished that Josephus wrote his Jewish history, that C"r wrote his Commentaries, or in behalf of any uninspired writings of antiquity, and would never have been questioned had not a class of rationalistic critics arisen who wished to set aside the lofty views of the personality and mission of the Savior which are so prominent a feature of the Fourth Gospel. We know from John 21:24, that it was written by an eye-witness and by a beloved disciple. There were only three disciples who were admitted to the most intimate relations with Jesus-Peter, James, and John."
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 10:21:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Bringing dead people back to life is rational? You fukking murican kids have the sh!t coming out of both your ears and mouth at the same time.
Larry4811
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 10:22:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sorry for the long post but I wan to try to document as best as I can.

Here is the entirety of the excerpt I was trying to post:

"art 4-Facts from the New Testament - Encouragement from every New Testament book - Luke, John - John
The author of the Fourth Gospel was John, the son of Zebedee and Salome, the brother of James, in early life a Galilean fisherman, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ. In less than a hundred years after his death Christian writers living in different quarters of the world, whose writings are still extant, show us that this was the universal belief of the church. Indeed, the testimony to the authorship is stronger than can be furnished that Josephus wrote his Jewish history, that C"r wrote his Commentaries, or in behalf of any uninspired writing 1009of antiquity, and would never have been questioned had not a class of rationalistic critics arisen who wished to set aside the lofty views of the personality and mission of the Savior which are so prominent a feature of the Fourth Gospel. We know from John 21:24, that it was written by an eye-witness and by a beloved disciple. There were only three disciples who were admitted to the most intimate relations with Jesus-Peter, James, and John. As it was not written by either of the first two, John must be the author. So the early church unanimously testifies. Iren", who learned of one who had been intimate with John and who wrote near the middle of the second century, affirms that he was the author. It is credited to John in the canon of Muratori, the first catalogue of the New Testament writings, written a.d. 175. It is also spoken of by Theophilus of Antioch a.d. 175, and by Clement of Alexandria, near the same time, and in the latter part of the second century it was translated into the Syriac and Latin versions of the New Testament. Besides these direct recognitions there are evident allusions to it and quotations from it in a number of epistles and treatises of Ignatius, Hermas, Polycarp, Papias, and others, which belong to the first half of the second century. Indeed, it is quoted within twenty years of John's death."

Many scholars today accept this ancient testimony that John wrote the New Testament books that bear his name. I agree with them that there is no reason to doubt it.

Larry
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 10:25:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 10:17:56 PM, Larry4811 wrote:
Paul's writings date from about 48AD " about 15 years after the event. Paul did confer with the original disciples. I Corinthians is recognized to be from Paul's pen and is one of his earliest writings.

Paul admits that he is not an eye-witness to Jesus in any way (outside of a spirit that visited him, which we cannot take as truth since it is not provable).

Also a good case can be made that the New Testament writers drew on oral tradition -

But there is no real evidence that it is made on oral traditions, only unsupported claims.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Larry4811
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 10:27:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 10:21:15 PM, monty1 wrote:
Bringing dead people back to life is rational? You fukking murican kids have the sh!t coming out of both your ears and mouth at the same time.

Monty,

I like your style - get a little chuckle from your post.

Larry
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 10:27:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, I don't interpret the resurrection of christ to mean a physical, bodily resurrection (and there is some evidence that St. Paul - author of the epistles - also did not).

I interpret the resurrection of Jesus to mean his character, his values, and his philosophy would be resurrected after his death and thrive!

In a very real sense, the world Jesus spoke of was established, albeit gradually, in the millennia to follow, in memory of what he taught and believed.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 10:37:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 10:25:25 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 10:17:56 PM, Larry4811 wrote:
Paul's writings date from about 48AD " about 15 years after the event. Paul did confer with the original disciples. I Corinthians is recognized to be from Paul's pen and is one of his earliest writings.

Paul admits that he is not an eye-witness to Jesus in any way (outside of a spirit that visited him, which we cannot take as truth since it is not provable).

Also a good case can be made that the New Testament writers drew on oral tradition -

But there is no real evidence that it is made on oral traditions, only unsupported claims.

Yes, but the gospel itself states that Paul and Peter never really got along . . . and Peter had deep reservations about Paul proselytizing among the gentiles. Peter believed the message of Jesus was exclusively for the Jews.

In fact, if it was for the writings of St. Paul, as several world-renown Bible scholars have noted, Christianity would have never become a global religion . . . it would have remained exclusively another (probably forgotten) Jewish sectarian belief.
Larry4811
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 10:40:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 10:25:25 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 10:17:56 PM, Larry4811 wrote:
Paul's writings date from about 48AD " about 15 years after the event. Paul did confer with the original disciples. I Corinthians is recognized to be from Paul's pen and is one of his earliest writings.

Paul admits that he is not an eye-witness to Jesus in any way (outside of a spirit that visited him, which we cannot take as truth since it is not provable).

Also a good case can be made that the New Testament writers drew on oral tradition

But there is no real evidence that it is made on oral traditions, only unsupported claims.

I think I have posted enough evidence that anyone who is interested can do their own further research.

I can suggest THE CHRIST FILES : HOW HISTORIANS KNOW WHAT THEY KNOW ABOUT JESUS - JOHN DICKSON

We still have to account for the fact that the Jews believed - on the authority of their scriptures that anyone who hung on a tree was accursed of God and that Jesus died the death that was reserved for slaves in the Roman world of the time.

Yet this is the man who was proclaimed - under threat of suffering, loss and /or death - threats that were actualized - to be God the Son.

How do you account for that?

Larry
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 10:46:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Another fact apart from the biblical jebus being a 100% Historical MYTH is that jebus was an eternal Jew!

Born a Jew, Lived and died as a Jew!

So unless you are a Jew, you are NOT a legitimate follower of this Story book mythical eternal Jew character!
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 10:59:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 10:27:42 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Well, I don't interpret the resurrection of christ to mean a physical, bodily resurrection (and there is some evidence that St. Paul - author of the epistles - also did not).

I interpret the resurrection of Jesus to mean his character, his values, and his philosophy would be resurrected after his death and thrive!

In a very real sense, the world Jesus spoke of was established, albeit gradually, in the millennia to follow, in memory of what he taught and believed.

Good! You are a modern Christian trying to hold onto the last remaining shred of faith by accepting that none of that Christians belief ratsh!t is to be taken literally.

But it's not going to save your skin and it's only going to make the explanations harer to come up with

In the meantime: Fellow atheists, this is a landmark victory! The resurrection bullsh!t story is not to be taken literally anymore!
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 11:00:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 10:46:51 PM, Composer wrote:
Another fact apart from the biblical jebus being a 100% Historical MYTH is that jebus was an eternal Jew!

Born a Jew, Lived and died as a Jew!

So unless you are a Jew, you are NOT a legitimate follower of this Story book mythical eternal Jew character!

There's sources outside of the Bible (Tacticus, the writings of the historian Josephus) that speak of Jesus of Nazareth and his Christian movement.

Secondly, I find it ludicrous that an entire religious movement would be founded on a fictitious, nonexistent character!

Let me give you an example of what I mean, even thought the writings of the Greek Myth writer Homer are understood to be fictitious, many of the places mentioned in stories, suck as Troy, and some of the characters have been archaeologically confirmed to exist!

Jesus was a real person . . . but a lot of myth was attributed to him during the Jewish War (~70AD) that turned him into a God, simply because the Jews at the time needed someone to inspire them and give them hope!