Resurrection of Jesus
- Thread starter hotstud87
- Start date
Physical fact in a book ENTIRELY based on human beliefs and superstitions written over two thousand years ago???
No, you can find no such thing
Historical, if you believe the bible to be 100% historically accurate, well then you are a fool, but if you do then you can find evidence of that in thier, although it too will be based entirely in myth and tradional superstition
ZERO MASS
Resurrection of Jesus?
In the NT, the word 'resurrection' was mistranslated. The original Greek word meant 'resuscitation.'Jesus might have hung on the cross briefly, but he didn't die nor did he rise on the third day. He was outta there that evening. Why does anyone think that Joseph of Arimathea conveniently offered his own personal tomb? There was no crucifixion, no resurrection, and there is no salvation. We are responsible for our own sins. The fact that we're here now shows that we are 'saved' if you can call it that.
In the NT, the word 'resurrection' was mistranslated. The original Greek word meant 'resuscitation.'Jesus might have hung on the cross briefly, but he didn't die nor did he rise on the third day. He was outta there that evening. Why does anyone think that Joseph of Arimathea conveniently offered his own personal tomb? There was no crucifixion, no resurrection, and there is no salvation. We are responsible for our own sins. The fact that we're here now shows that we are 'saved' if you can call it that.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Re: Resurrection of Jesus?
Do you simply make these things up or do you use some comic book for source material? What Vorlage was mistranslated? By whom? What is your evidence?
Kant we all...
Registered Senior Member
I don't know that the Bible is 100% historically accurate, per se, but should one be a fool to consider that at least some of it is historically accurate, and is that one, then, still a "fool" in your eyes? And "if you do then you can find evidence of that in [there], although it too will be based entirely in myth and traditional superstition"--is this a claim which has factual grounds, or is it just another of the materialists' dogmas?
One more thing, to all, I find it overwhelmingly humorous that the atheists are (perhaps without realizing) fighting on other team by so vehemently questioning the claims of the Medicine Woman. Nice work, fellas.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
That would depend a great deal on what is believed and why. It is common to find dogs on farms. It is common to find farms in Kansas. Its is common to find Kansas experiencing tornados. You would nevertheless be a fool to consider the Wizard of Oz historically accurate.
You are easily amused. Medicine Woman should be held to the same standards of reason and evidence as Christian fundamentalists. That you find this "overwhelmingly humorous" says a good deal more about you than about the dialogue.
Kant we all...
Registered Senior Member
Toché. However, I don't know that I ever meant to make a comment about the dialogue in that; I think I probably was making a reference to myself, as you've said. Nevertheless, I was being sarcastic; I guess I shouldn't do that anymore.
The problem here is that "it is common to find dogs on farms" and "it is common to find farms in Kansas" and "it is common to find Kansas experiencing tornados" are not historical examples, but more or less factual examples. Plus, the Wizard of Oz is a "self-confessed" tale, fiction story, what have you. What about stories that claim to be true?
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
As I said, That would depend a great deal on what is believed and why. Very little legend/folklore is congealed entirely out of thin air. For example, I suspect that most documentarians feel that much of the Exodus story reflects the fears, hopes, needs, and, even, geography, of the Babylonian diaspora communities.
Why not give an example of some presumed piece of Biblical history that you find unjustly dismissed.?
Kant we all...
Registered Senior Member
I never suggested "I" had anything of the sort. But perhaps the subject for which this thread was begun would be a fair example.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
What extra-Biblical evidence do you have suggecting the resurrection is anything but story promulgated by apologists? Do you cosider Mathew's discussion of saints crawling out of their graves and strolling the streets of Jerusalem likewise historical? What about the ascension of Apollonius?
Kant we all...
Registered Senior Member
I do not have any extra-Biblical evidence. The Biblical account is--in theory--supposed to be enough. I think that part of the problem is that, in our day, we see the Bible as one "book" when it is actually a collection of several books complied over several centuries; and if increased numbers have anything to do with increased probability, well...you get the idea. Further, for something to be a "story promulgated by apologists", that it has an "apology" presumes that there is something to defend. I believe it was C. S. Lewis who frequently made the argument that to create a so called "myth" with the assumptions of a man rising from the grave who claims to be God and who saves the entire world from all of their wrongs and misdeeds is so seemingly absurd that it is either just that (absurd), or that it could only have been put into action by a God of some sort; the point being that no human being or group of them could ever be clever enough (especially not poor, uneducated fishermen living in ca. 30 A.D.) to fabricate such an extravagant story; nor would it ever be very reasonable to die for it...unless, of course, it were true.
As for "Mathew's discussion of saints crawling out of their graves and strolling around the streets of Jerusalem" and "the ascension of Apollonius"-- I don't know anything about either of those, so I can't say one way or the other.
_____
A good example of the "apologetic" mindset.
These guys check their brains at the door when they try to explain why their story MUST be credible.
The story of the Son of Man is an End of the World cult that was popular in books about a hero called Enoch. The poor, uneducated fishermen didn't have to make any of it up. They said the Son of Man would appear in the clouds and judge mankind.... because they had read it.
Why did they die for it?
Because if you believe the story that God has announced the world is about to end, and the only way you can be saved is to die for the cause... haven't you read about suicide bombers?
Dying for a cause is a sign that you don't have much on the ball intellectually, and not much else. Certainly not the underlying myth is true.
unbound.biola.edu
Luke 23:27
And there was following him a great multitude of the people, and of women, who also were beating themselves and lamenting him.
Jesus said, 'Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but for yourselves weep ye, and for your children; for, lo, days do come, in which they shall say, Happy the barren, and wombs that did not bare, and paps that did not give suck; then they shall begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us, and to the hills, Cover us; --
for, if in the green tree they do these things -- in the dry what may happen?'
Could poor, uneducated fishermen have invented Jesus making this speech? After he was lashed and beaten, he turns to some women and quotes prophecies about the coming end of the world?
Well, someone made it up, because a prisoner in Roman custody never made that speech. They would have knocked out his teeth before he got halfway through it.
Last edited:
Kant we all...
Registered Senior Member
If they are poor and uneducated, can they read?
Isn't there a difference between one being killed for something and killing oneself for something?
Is patriotism, though, is that a virtue? Do soldiers who die for their country not "have much on the ball intellectually"?
I don't know. Perhaps if Jesus' statements are to be considered something extraordinary, not in my opinion, but in yours, maybe then uneducated fishermen couldn't have invented those words. But your thinking that way could refute your own argument: uneducated fishermen couldn't have made that up, so Jesus must have said it. But if you meant that they were really not poor and uneducated, then I, again, don't really know what to say other than that, to my knowledge up until now, I have always understood that they were poor, and uneducated. So, were they not poor and uneducated?
I think that perhaps he might have made it in passing, almost as a whispher. But neither of us can be totally sure about that can we? And who is to say that he didn't get his teeth knocked out at some point?
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
And, therefore, you have no evidence at all.
That's not a theory. That's a claim.
No, I do not "get the idea". Argumentum ad numerum is a rather pathetic fallacy. In what way do you think that increased numbers suggest increased probability? Legend/folklore is, by its very nature syncretic.
That doesn't even pass the giggle test. Scan the internet. There is a plethora of absurdities fabricated by self-proclaimed gurus. Do you always presume that the more absurd the claim, the more likely it is to be true, or do you preserve this silly selection criteria for the Bible alone?
That is convenient. You should read your Bible.
Kant we all...
Registered Senior Member
Let us think for a moment, shall we? Which makes the likelihood that the Peloponisian War ever took place more probable: if one historian writes about it, or if many historians write about it?
The point of the argument is that Jesus was either insane or he was really God.
What I said was not intended to be a theory. I was making a claim about something which should theoretically work.
No? Why not?
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
How many extra-biblical histories of the resurrection have you read (presumable while you were avoiding the Gospel of Matthew)?
No. That was, in part, the argument associated with the trilemma. The argument put forward by you is absurdity renders a story more probable.
According to what theory?
What is your evidence of a resurrection? Luke embellishing Matthew embellishing Mark decades after the presumed event? Who was at the empty tomb? What did they see? What of the missing Marjan appendix and Matthews resurrected saints? It's your story. Defend it.
Kant we all...
Registered Senior Member
I think maybe you missed my point or we somewhere along the way got off topic. Remember that I was suggesting that the Bible is a "compilation" of "many" books, and not solely "a book." The enumeration of all of these books, though contained all in one big book, make for likelihood.
I have read no extra-biblical histories. I have read the Gospel of Matthew; but whatever it was that you had earlier mentioned about it, it was that that I was not sure of and do not remember.
Did I say that? Did I imply it? Perhaps you misunderstood. The only argument I put forward was that it the story has the tendency of being perceived as SO absurd that it would be completely impossible that any man or group of men could EVER in a thousand lifetimes fabricate it. The only possibility, then, would be that God--or a god--could conjure up such unbelievable things. Human wisdom is ignorance in the eyes of God; while God's ignorance is wiser than human wisdom.
I don't know that there is a name for it. It is not as though it is a literal "theory." It is more or less (I think) a "saying"--just like "Well, 'technically'..." or "God bless America" or "Oh shit."
Is it my story? Did I ever say it was? Maybe I'm just doing this for fun? I have no idea about Marjan appendices nor Matthew's resurrected saints. But are those things relevant to the situation at hand of which we are discoursing? I believe they say that Jesus' apostles Peter and John saw the empty tomb, and the Mary of Magdala saw Jesus there; and they would all see him later eventually.
I'm assuming that you discount the possibility of there ever being a resurrection on the dogma that "miracles don't happen." If you're arguing in that circle, you'll never get out anyway. So why fight?
go to your local bookshop and find the best fantasy/sci-fi book you can find then read that. in often cases they will be more elaborate, better constructed (in terms of english), better detailed and more intricate than the bible. the human imagination is capable of amazing feats, and is something i would never under-estimate when coming up with a good story.
once again, never under-estimate the power of the human imagination. they may have been uneducated men, but they probably were very superstitious men, capable of assigning anything unknown to their superstitious beliefs- no matter how ridiculous or small. don't forget that they were jut as "smart" as we are today- we just have a lot more knowledge and a better diet.