Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 83 of 94  •  Prev 1 ... 81 82 83 84 85 ... 94 Next
5 years ago  ::  May 29, 2011 - 7:19PM #821
Blü
Posts: 26,191

teilhard


You like to state and understand Questions and Facts and Possibilities (and "Reality" Itself) in Terms of Stark Dualities/Dichotomies ... I do not ...


So quite expressly you oppose distinguishing between fact and fiction.

Noted.



I DO understand that you make that ASSERTION ... I disagree with you ..


I've made my case by reasoning from identified evidence.  The OP of this thread examines in detail the quality of the evidence for the resurrection. Indeed I've conducted threads in this forum specifically to assemble evidence - for an historical Jesus, and for the relevance of Paul to an historical Jesus, for example.

You've never made a reasoned reply to the OP of this thread, nor evidence-based reasoned contributions to other threads here.

Instead you've offered, at best, only the vaguest and tritest assertions - as you're doing here.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 29, 2011 - 8:50PM #822
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

My Responses in this Thread have been entirely Reasonable and Consistent ...


I disagree with your a priori Premises ...


See ... E.g., in YOUR World(View) The (Reported) Resurrection of The Lord Jesus (The Christ) of Nazareth DIDN'T happen because such Events NEVER happen and we KNOW this because they DON'T happen because they CAN'T happen and so -- by Definition -- have NEVER happened ...


Further ... As you know by now, I disagree with your "take" on The Nature and Reliability of The First Century Greek Testament Documents ...


The FACT that YOU regard them as "Fictional" rather than Fact-ual is -- again -- YOUR Problem, not MINE ...


May 29, 2011 -- 7:19PM, Blü wrote:


teilhard


You like to state and understand Questions and Facts and Possibilities (and "Reality" Itself) in Terms of Stark Dualities/Dichotomies ... I do not ...


So quite expressly you oppose distinguishing between fact and fiction.

Noted.



I DO understand that you make that ASSERTION ... I disagree with you ..


I've made my case by reasoning from identified evidence.  The OP of this thread examines in detail the quality of the evidence for the resurrection. Indeed I've conducted threads in this forum specifically to assemble evidence - for an historical Jesus, and for the relevance of Paul to an historical Jesus, for example.

You've never made a reasoned reply to the OP of this thread, nor evidence-based reasoned contributions to other threads here.

Instead you've offered, at best, only the vaguest and tritest assertions - as you're doing here.





Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 30, 2011 - 8:28AM #823
Blü
Posts: 26,191

teilhard


My Responses in this Thread have been entirely Reasonable and Consistent ...


No,  You never make reasoned arguments.   You simply make assertions, almost always negative ones - denials or rejections.


in YOUR World(View) The (Reported) Resurrection of The Lord Jesus (The Christ) of Nazareth DIDN'T happen because such Events NEVER happen


That's only a part of it.  Another part is that the quality of NT evidence for anything supernatural happening is truly abysmal.  I've already pointed out how utterly inferior that evidence is to the video of Ganesha's statue drinking milk - which of itself is a vast distance short of meeting the evidentiary standard that could seriously raise the question of a miracle occurring.


I disagree with your "take" on The Nature and Reliability of The First Century Greek Testament Documents ...


You've asserted that, but you've never presented a reasoned case as to why it might be true.

And just yesterday you unambiguously rejected the idea of distinguishing fact from fiction.  Your take on the NT documents is, I therefore assume, that they're fiction but that's overridden by your wish that they be fact instead.


The FACT that YOU regard them as "Fictional" rather than Fact-ual is -- again -- YOUR Problem, not MINE ...


You can't present any acceptable evidence that they're factual.  That's because there's none.


So - enjoy your fictions!

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 30, 2011 - 4:59PM #824
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

(1)  Indeed, I DON'T  "argue" with your Assertions, since, as I have tirelessly indicated, your Claims are based upon  FAULTY  a priori  PREMISES ...


(2)  Thank you for your Concession ...


(3)  I don't think "Events" are susceptible to "Reason"  ... "Stuff" HAPPENS ... whether it's "Reason-able" or NOT ... 


(4)  Again ... YOUR Assertion ..


In Addition, however, I see NO  GOOD  Reason to doubt the First-Person Authenticity, e.g., of The "We Passages" in "Acts" ... "Luke" WAS  THERE ...


May 30, 2011 -- 8:28AM, Blü wrote:


teilhard


My Responses in this Thread have been entirely Reasonable and Consistent ...


(1) No,  You never make reasoned arguments.   You simply make assertions, almost always negative ones - denials or rejections.


in YOUR World(View) The (Reported) Resurrection of The Lord Jesus (The Christ) of Nazareth DIDN'T happen because such Events NEVER happen


That's only a part of it. 


I disagree with your "take" on The Nature and Reliability of The First Century Greek Testament Documents ...


You've asserted that, but you've never presented a reasoned case as to why it might be true.



The FACT that YOU regard them as "Fictional" rather than Fact-ual is -- again -- YOUR Problem, not MINE ...


(4)  You can't present any acceptable evidence that they're factual.  That's because there's none.





Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 30, 2011 - 10:00PM #825
Blü
Posts: 26,191

 


teilhard


I DON'T  "argue" with your Assertions


True.  But you would if you could.


 


I see NO  GOOD  Reason to doubt the First-Person  Authenticity, e.g., of The "We Passages" in "Acts" ... "Luke" WAS  THERE  ...


Acts, as even you must know, is regarded for excellent reasons as a 2nd century forgery.  Gosh, its stories about Paul can't even be reconciled with Paul's own account.


But most relevantly, it contains no purported eyewitness accounts of an historical Jesus.  In fact it no more shows the existence of an historical Jesus than of an historical Dionusos.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 30, 2011 - 10:48PM #826
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

(1)  Again ... YOUR Claims are based upon your a priori Premises, which I reject ...


(2)  Yes, yes, yes ... And some People think -- CONTEND !!! -- that The Moon Landings were faked and Elvis is still Alive ... So ... ???


May 30, 2011 -- 10:00PM, Blü wrote:


teilhard


I DON'T  "argue" with your Assertions


(1)  True.  But you would if you could.


 


I see NO  GOOD  Reason to doubt the First-Person  Authenticity, e.g., of The "We Passages" in "Acts" ... "Luke" WAS  THERE  ...


(2)  Acts, as even you must know, is regarded for excellent reasons as a 2nd century forgery.  Gosh, its stories about Paul can't even be reconciled with Paul's own account.





Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 31, 2011 - 5:45AM #827
Blü
Posts: 26,191

So much for teilhard the scholar!

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 31, 2011 - 11:49PM #828
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

Fr. Teilhard appreciates the Compliment, no matter how grudging or un-intended ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 19, 2014 - 8:14AM #829
John1one
Posts: 1,601

Dec 28, 2009 -- 6:19PM, Blü wrote:


The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus as an historical event is of very poor quality. It's no more capable of persuading an impartial onlooker that such an event happened in history than any other of the resurrection stories of antiquity.



There are billions of people around the globe and over a period of nearly 2000 years who would disagree with you. But, we won’t let that stop you from believing as you wish. :-)


 


 


Dec 28, 2009 -- 6:19PM, Blü wrote:

The initial problem

An historical Jesus has never been definitively found. If in this thread I appear to speak as though he historically existed, it's only so as to discuss the evidence of the resurrection in isolation from this problem.



Not to worry, I will not mistake you for a believer, but you do overstep yourself by claiming that the historical Jesus has never been found. Many biblical scholars, among whom are Christians, Jews, atheists and agnostics, would disagree with you; but once again we won’t let such a trifling matter keep you from believing as you wish. :-)


 


 


Dec 28, 2009 -- 6:19PM, Blü wrote:

The 'Usual Story' problem

Resurrections are routine in tales from the ancient world.

In the bible stories -
* Samuel came back after his death and spoke with Saul. (You could argue he was a ghost, not a bodily resurrection.)
* Elijah raised the Zarephath woman’s son.
* Elisha raised the Shamite woman’s son.
* The man whose dead body touched Elisha's bones was resurrected.
* Jesus raised the Nain widow’s son.
* Jesus raised Lazarus.
* Peter raised Tabitha / Dorcas.
* Matthew describes the faithful dead at large in the streets of Jerusalem.



Concerning Samuel, all we have is the testimony of the witch of Endor that Samuel was seen. The text doesn’t claim anyone else **saw** Samuel. The others’ resurrections concern bodily resurrections and a return to normal life (with the possible exception of Matthew)—not immortality as is the case of Jesus.


 


 


Dec 28, 2009 -- 6:19PM, Blü wrote:

Elsewhere - and this is only a tiny sample - Osiris in Egypt, Tammuz in Babylon, Dionusos in Greece were put to death and came back to life. In Greece, Asklepios raised Lukourgos, Kapaneos and Tundareos from the dead, and Glaukos, Hippolutos and Orion were resurrected too - as indeed was Asklepios himself. Eurudike (and in Scandanavia, Baldur) nearly made it back. Persephone and Adonis had to spend only half their time in the Underworld.



"A text without a context is just a pretext of whatever you want it to mean."


What you have above are not resurrections at all. Some concern agricultural gods that ‘die’ in the winter and ‘resurrect’ in the spring. This has nothing to do with bodily resurrection. Furthermore, any ‘supposed’ resurrection that spends its time in the “underworld” is no physical resurrection at all. What you are doing is taking Biblical words and applying them as you wish to pagan literature. No such thing exists except as a red herring to suit your argument.


 


 


Dec 28, 2009 -- 6:19PM, Blü wrote:

The miracle problem

No examinable evidence suggests, let alone demonstrates, that supernatural beings exist in reality - gods, angels, souls, magicians, goblins, werewolves and so on, none of them.

But miracles are not just breaches of the rules of the natural world - they're purposeful interventions in the natural world by supernatural beings.

The evidence necessary to establish a miracle must therefore be of extraordinary quality - sufficient to establish a category never previously shown to exist. For that reason, virtually ANY non-supernatural explanation is vastly more probable than a supernatural one. (If you doubt this, next time you're hauled into court on a traffic matter, try running the defense, A supernatural being seized the controls from me.)



This has more to do with your worldview than reality per se. According to your worldview, God doesn’t exist, and in such a world anything supernatural could not exist. The physical is your **only** reality. This is a worldview, not a proved hypothesis.


The existence of God is at the foundation of my worldview. Given the argument of God’s existence, miracles are not a problem. Therefore, miracles are not the issue here. Our worldviews clash and they are the issue.


 


 


Dec 28, 2009 -- 6:19PM, Blü wrote:

Hence (on the assumption that an historical Jesus existed at all) all of the following possibilities are vastly more probable explanations of the resurrection of Jesus than the supernatural ones in the NT -


1* The body of Jesus was never placed in the tomb.
2* The body of Jesus was stolen from the tomb.
3* Jesus wasn't dead. He recovered consciousness and left.
4* Whoever reported the body missing went to the wrong tomb.
5** or was mistaken
6** or altered his report to accord with his wishes
7** or set out to deceive.
8* Whoever spread the story of the missing body was acting on a false or mistaken report
9** or altered the report to accord with his wishes
10** or set out to deceive
11** or made up the story intending a metaphor
12** or made up the story but didn't intend it to be taken literally.
13* The story is a Jewish satire.
14* Or any other non-supernatural explanation.



Easy to see that it's impossible to rule any of them out on the basis of the NT accounts.



On the contrary, my friend, it is rather easy to reasonably show that most of your assumptions are wrong on the face, because Christianity could not have arisen had they been true.


#1 is false for several reasons. First, Christians need an empty tomb in order to account for a resurrection. If they couldn’t at least have a plausible argument, the movement would never have gotten off the ground. Secondly, the Jewish authorities never point to a ‘no grave’ argument in an effort to suppress the movement. It is similar to the premise of “The Dog that Didn’t Bark.”


#2 is the best explanation of the 14 and is the very one the NT says the Jewish authorities used against the movement, but if this is the **only** explanation that cannot be proved wrong, you are left with proof that Jesus at least existed and an explanation for the missing body is needed.


#3 is false for several reasons. First, Romans knew how to kill people. Secondly, executioners knew when a body was dead, hence the Roman spear into the side of Jesus, yielding a copious flow of both blood and water as evidence enough of death. Add to this a crucifixion, several beatings throughout the night, plus a scourging in the morning that ripped his skin and possibly exposing bone and intestines would leave little doubt that Jesus was dead in the afternoon. In fact, it would be a supernatural deed in itself for such a person awake and walk on his own (remember the crucified feet), roll back the stone and overcome the guards.


#4 through #10 are all false, because the body could then be produced by the Jewish authorities. They knew where the body should have been and would have been very eager to halt the movement in its tracks.


#11 through #13 are false, because early Christians took the event seriously, if the preaching was meant to be taken figuratively in any way, the Jewish authorities would again be able to produce the body to expose the fraud/literary ploy to keep folks from taking the resurrection literally.


#14 is merely an expression of your own worldview and needs no explanation other than this is what I would expect you to believe.


Concerning your claim: (it is…) “Easy to see that it's impossible to rule any of them out on the basis of the NT accounts” – you are wrong, my friend. We can rule out all but #2 on the face. None of the others could be true, considering the fact that Christianity arose under the foundation claim of Jesus’ resurrection. Only #2 is possible and needs to be accounted for; moreover, this assumes a need to explain a missing body. This implies the existence of that body in the first place, so there is the elusive “historical Jesus” whom you seek.


 


Dec 28, 2009 -- 6:19PM, Blü wrote:

The incredibility of the NT accounts

Quite apart from the supernatural aspect, the five NT accounts are incredible for other reasons. If you went to court relying on evidence of that quality, you'd be thrown out before you could open your mouth.

First, none of the accounts is (or even purports to be) an eyewitness account.



Luke claims to be recording “eyewitness” testimony (Luke 1:1-4). Moreover, 2Peter 1:16 claims what was preached in the world was eyewitness testimony. Luke 24:48 and Acts 1:8 both claim that the disciples of Jesus would be witnesses of him both near and abroad. Acts 2:32 has Peter claiming all the disciples then present with him were witnesses to the fact that Jesus was resurrected. There are others I could mention, but I point out these in the event you wish to be informed about that which you deny.


 


 


Dec 28, 2009 -- 6:19PM, Blü wrote:

Second, none of the accounts is contemporary with the event. If we use the traditional date for the crucifixion, 33 CE, then Paul's account is at least 17 years after the event and consists ONLY of the assertion that Jesus was crucified - he never says where, when, why or by whom. Mark's account is next, and no earlier than 70 CE, so at least 37 years later. John's (the last) is at least 67 years later.



You don’t know that. All you have is the final form of Mark, which 2nd century tradition has it that Mark gave written copies of Peter’s testimony to the Roman church. How long Peter used this testimony cannot be determined by the time Mark gave copies to the Roman church. Peter was testifying since Pentecost, 50 days after Jesus’ resurrection, and he was using at least some of the testimony in Mark as we can see in Acts 2 & 3—Jesus was crucified by the Jewish and Roman leaders and rose from the dead, did miracles, was righteous and approved of God etc.


Additionally, the Gospel of Mark is considered to have very poor Greek syntax. It is like the old Pennsylvania Dutch saying “Throw the cow over the fence some hay!” The real intent was to throw the hay over the fence, not the cow. That is poor American English syntax, but it is good German syntax. The point is the Greek of Mark retains the original Hebrew/Aramaic syntax, showing an earlier Palestinian document from which Mark translated for the Roman church (or whoever, if you don’t want to accept the 2nd century tradition). The fact remains the Greek in Mark betrays good Aramaic/Hebrew syntax showing it was originally taken from one of those languages. So there goes your “no earlier than 70CE” argument.


 


 


Dec 28, 2009 -- 6:19PM, Blü wrote:

Third, none of the NT accounts is an independent report.



Are you claiming John copied Mark? If none of the NT accounts is independent, what original are you pointing to? Certainly Mark didn’t copy from Matthew, Luke or John, so is Mark original or did he copy from someone else, and if so, who would that be?


 


 


Dec 28, 2009 -- 6:19PM, Blü wrote:

And fourth, each of the five NT accounts of the resurrection conflicts in major ways with the other four.


The incompatibility of the five biblical resurrection accounts


Here's a list of incompatible claims in the five resurrection accounts in the NT. (Paul's account is at 1 Corinthians 15.) It's not exhaustive.

1. Who went to the tomb?

Paul:                -
Mark:               Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome
Matthew:         MM, MmJ
Luke:               MM, MmJ, Joanna
John:                MM



First, you are assuming only one group of women started out for the tomb. Some lived or stayed in Bethany, while others lived or stayed in Jerusalem (remember at least some of the women were visiting from Galilee). Since we can be certain that they didn’t have stopwatches with which they could coordinate their activities and arrive at the tomb at precisely the same time, there is no reason to presume only one group of women. Secondly, you are assuming that only one trip was made to the tomb. Matthew 28:1, for example, has Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James (MmJ) going to the tomb because of an earthquake, and the time of the event seems to have occurred sometime near sunset on Saturday (i.e. as it began to dawn toward the 1st day of the week—the Jewish day began or ‘dawned’ at sunset. This visit was not made on Sunday morning.


You need to read the texts in context not simply compare everything with everything. What you are doing is drawing conclusions about the text by making out that the writers made no sense. You really don’t believe you are among the first to discover that a strict comparison of the texts cannot show the details of what occurred—do you? The idea of such a comparison not yielding apparent chronological details could also be recognized if 5 or 6 people witnessed an auto accident from different angles and told their stories from only their own vantage points. Only the law officer with all the stories could put it together, provided he didn’t purposely try to make one contradict the other, as you seem to be doing.


 


 


Dec 28, 2009 -- 6:19PM, Blü wrote:

2. What did they see?


Paul:                -
Mark:               Open tomb
Matthew:         An earthquake. An angel descending who rolled away the stone and sat on it. He looked like lightning, his raiment white as snow
Luke:               Open tomb
John:                Open tomb



Matthew tells what occurred about Saturday sundown, the others tell about Sunday near or slightly after sunrise.


 


 


Dec 28, 2009 -- 6:19PM, Blü wrote:

3. Were any guards there?

Paul:                -
Mark:               No.
Matthew:         The guards trembled.
Luke:               No
John:                No



Matthew speaks of events before or at the time of the resurrection. Obviously, the guards would not be there in the morning after seeing the angel roll back the tomb. Mark, Luke and John occur after the guards left.


 


 


Dec 28, 2009 -- 6:19PM, Blü wrote:

4. What did they do?

Paul:                -
Mark:               Went in.
Matthew:         -
Luke:               Went in
John:                Ran to fetch Peter and the Beloved Disciple who ran to the tomb and saw the linen


 


5. Did they see anyone in or at the tomb?

Paul:                -
Mark:               Saw one young man in a white robe. Told Jesus had risen, and would meet the disciples at Galilee
Matthew:         Addressed by an angel. Told Jesus had risen, and would meet the disciples at Galilee.
Luke:               Saw two men in dazzling apparel. Told Jesus was risen.
John:                No.



6. What did they do next?

Paul:                -
Mark:               They fled in fear.
Matthew:         They left.
Luke:               They went and told the eleven but weren't believed.
John:                Peter and the Beloved Disciple went home.



Any assumed inconsistency in the above accounts disappears in the light of the fact there were more than one group of women. Some came from Bethany, some Jerusalem, possibly a third coming from Emmaus.


 


 


Dec 28, 2009 -- 6:19PM, Blü wrote:

7. To whom did Jesus first appear?

Paul:                Peter
Mark:               MM
Matthew:         MM and MmJ
Luke:               Cleopas' (= Cephas/Peter?) and Simon
John:                MM



Because Paul mentions Peter first in the list he submits, doesn’t mean that Jesus first appeared to Peter. You are reading that into the text. Paul was offering the Corinthians a list of credible witnesses. Women were not considered credible witnesses in 1st century Greco/Roman culture. Matthew actually doesn’t have Jesus appear to MM or MmJ, rather he appears to a group of women sometime on Sunday morning after sunrise. Mark and John agree and Luke obviously doesn’t have Jesus appear to Cleopas and Simon first, because they tell Jesus that earlier in the day women came to them saying Jesus had risen (Luke 24:22-24).


 


 


Dec 28, 2009 -- 6:19PM, Blü wrote:

8. How?

Paul:                -
Mark:               As MM fled.
Matthew:         As MM and MmJ were going home. He told them he'd meet the disciples at Galilee.
Luke:               As Cleopas and Simon walked to Emmaus. They didn’t recognize him. That night at dinner he broke the bread and they realized who he was.
John:                At the tomb. MM mistook him for the gardener. Then she recognized him. He said, 'Inform my brethren'.



Again, you presuppose there was only one group of women, and you are trying to make all the accounts the same, which obviously can’t be done, since they are different accounts describing the same thing from different vantage points at different times of the day.


 


 


Dec 28, 2009 -- 6:19PM, Blü wrote:

9. What did the guards do?

Paul:                -
Mark:               -
Matthew:         Told the chief priests. Were paid to say, Disciples stole the body.
Luke:               -
John:                -



10. What did the others do?

Paul:                -
Mark:               -
Matthew:         The eleven went to Galilee.
Luke:               Went to Jerusalem, told the disciples &c.
John:                MM told the disciples.



Unless you are trying to say Luke contradicts himself, there is no contradiction between the accounts. In Acts 1:1-4 Luke tells us that Jesus appeared to the disciples several times over a period of 40 days, and the last time when they were assembled together (Acts 1:4-9) he told them not to depart from Jerusalem until they were embowered by God (cp. Luke 24:50-53).


You are, indeed, reading the text, but you do not adhere to the context. Therefore, you are able in pretext to cause whatever you read to mean whatever you like.


 


 


Dec 28, 2009 -- 6:19PM, Blü wrote:

11. To whom did Jesus second appear?

Paul:                The twelve [sic].
Mark:               two of them'.
Matthew:         The eleven.
Luke:               The eleven and others.
John:                The disciples and others



Due to your presupposition that all the accounts must be **one** account, you err in not seeing that though they speak of the same event, but tell the story from different times of the day and from different vantage points. You seem to want a neat little package that you can explain with little effort. You can’t do that with the Bible. Context is important in order to understand what is going on. No one speaks of all the witnesses at any one time, not even Paul, because he never mentions the women – why? because, as I said earlier, women weren’t considered reliable witnesses in that culture (cp. Luke 24:11) and Paul was trying to prove his case to brethren who were listening to some skeptical adversaries in Corinth.


 


 


Dec 28, 2009 -- 6:19PM, Blü wrote:

12. Where?

Paul:                -
Mark:               -
Matthew:         At Galilee
Luke:               While MM, MmJ and Joanna were reporting to the eleven.
John:                At table, with doors shut



Again, Acts 1:1-4 claims Jesus appeared to the disciples several times over a period of 40 days. There are no contradictions among the above, except you are obviously wrong about Luke. Jesus did not appear to the eleven while MM, MmJ and Joanna were reporting to them.


 


 


Dec 28, 2009 -- 6:19PM, Blü wrote:

13. With what result?

Paul:                -
Mark:               The two told the others but weren't believed.
Matthew:         They worshiped him but some doubted. He told them to preach to all nations.
Luke:               They thought he was a ghost. He reassured them. He led them to Bethany. He was carried up to heaven.
John:                They were glad. He gave them the Holy Spirit and power to forgive.


14. To whom did Jesus third appear?


Paul:                The five hundred.
Mark:               The eleven at table. He upbraided them for their disbelief. He told them signs - demons, tongues, serpents, poisons. He went up to heaven.
Matthew:         *
Luke:               *
John:                At the same house as before, with the doors locked. He reassured Thomas.


15. To whom did Jesus fourth appear?


Paul:                James
Mark:               *
Matthew:         *
Luke:               *
John:                Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the BD and another disciple. They didn’t recognize him at first. They caught lots of fish. They recognized him at breakfast. They argued over the Beloved Disciple waiting till Jesus returned.


16. To whom did Jesus fifth appear?

Paul:                All the apostles.


17. Where did Jesus ascend to heaven?

Mark:               Galilee
Luke:               Bethany



Once more, you are trying to fit everything into one day and/or one place. The disciples couldn’t possibly get from Jerusalem to Galilee in a single day. Neither could one fit everything recorded in the different accounts into a single day. Obviously, as concluded from Acts 1:1-4, Jesus appeared to the disciples several times over a period of 40 days. While Mark mentions Galilee in Mark 16:7, verse-8 gives an account of some of Jesus’ appearances in and around Jerusalem. By the time we come to his ascension into heaven, Galilee is not part of the context.


 


 


Dec 28, 2009 -- 6:19PM, Blü wrote:

Conclusion


You can get to the resurrection by faith.


You can't get there through history.


 


 


[Post script: there's a sixth partial account of the resurrection in Acts 1. It's incompatible with the other five versions.]


 




Since your worldview cannot permit a resurrection, it isn’t surprising that you cannot arrive at the resurrection through history, but since your worldview cannot accept the resurrection—period, neither could you arrive at it by faith.


Nevertheless, my worldview permits both, and quite frankly, is the more logical of the two.

QUESTION AUTHORITY
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 21, 2014 - 12:21AM #830
Blü
Posts: 26,191

John1one


There are billions of people around the globe and over a period of nearly 2000 years who would disagree with you. But, we won’t let that stop you from believing as you wish.


Truth isn't democratic. The argument from popular opinion has no validity or we'd all accept geocentry and a flat earth like the bible does.


Many biblical scholars, among whom are Christians, Jews, atheists and agnostics, would disagree with you


This argument from authority likewise has no validity. Why don't you present evidence acceptable to reasoned enquiry instead?


This has nothing to do with bodily resurrection.


It has just as much to do with bodily resurrection as Jesus does. Read the stories.


What you are doing is taking Biblical words and applying them as you wish to pagan literature. No such thing exists except as a red herring to suit your argument.


Now you're pretending the Christian supernatural is somehow superior to the Pagans' supernatural. But there's no difference - both exist only in imagination.


This has more to do with your worldview than reality per se. According to your worldview, God doesn’t exist, and in such a world anything supernatural could not exist.


What thing in reality do you intend to denote when you say 'God'?

If it's in reality then it has objective existence ie isn't just imaginary. So show it to me.


Given the argument of God’s existence, miracles are not a problem.


I look forward to your answer to the previous question with even greater interest then.

After that you can show me some miracles and explain how to do them.


it is rather easy to reasonably show that most of your assumptions are wrong on the face, because Christianity could not have arisen had they been true.


So, you say, if the miracles of Osiris, of Dionusos, of Mithra, of Ganesha, weren't true, then their cults couldn't possibly have arisen.

A curious view of human culture.

And your list of "rebuttals" of the alternative possibilities are too feeble to rule any of them out, let alone make them less likely than your miracle hypothesis.


Luke claims to be recording “eyewitness” testimony (Luke 1:1-4). Moreover, 2Peter 1:16 claims what was preached in the world was eyewitness testimony.


That is, Luke says he's recording what someone else told him. He never says who told him, whether that person were an eyewitness, what, where, when or how that person specifically saw or heard anything - or any other detail that might suggest a real eyewitness.

So at best Luke records only hearsay, most of it copied from Mark.


2Peter 1:16 claims what was preached in the world was eyewitness testimony.


More hearsay, and 2 Peter's a pseudepigraph / forgery into the bargain.


All you have is the final form of Mark, which 2nd century tradition has it that Mark gave written copies of Peter’s testimony to the Roman church.


If you want to say that's true, you'll need to produce vastly better evidence for it than you presently have.


Are you claiming John copied Mark?


No. The authors of Matthew and Luke copy Mark.

By 'independent', I mean written by someone outside the Christian sect.


As for your comments on the list of important differences in the stories, nothing of what you say makes them go away.

If Author A says that X happened, and Author B doesn't mention X, you have only A's version that X happened and B gives no support whatsoever to that claim.

To put that another way, if you try to invent a single version by going with eg the majority view on each difference, all you end up with is yet another version that can't be reconciled any of the other six.


Since your worldview cannot permit a resurrection


You fail to understand what I'm saying.

If you want me to think that resurrections can happen in reality, show me a real one. That's how you show anything is real, be it the Higgs boson or the unicorn.

In the absence of such a demonstration, you simply have a tale that's imaginary - not about reality at all.


my worldview permits both


Then you'll have no trouble concluding that *this video* shows a miracle by the Lord Ganesha occurring in reality.

Note that a video as evidence is light years ahead of hearsay reports none of which is written within two decades of the alleged event.


Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 83 of 94  •  Prev 1 ... 81 82 83 84 85 ... 94 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook