Resurrection of Jesus

SnakeLord,

Upon reviewing all of Kant's posts and the context in which they were set, you appear to have missed every single point he made on which you commented. Try reading through everything and getting the right perspective before passing such harsh judgments.
 
Originally posted by Don Corleone
SnakeLord,

Upon reviewing all of Kant's posts and the context in which they were set, you appear to have missed every single point he made on which you commented. Try reading through everything and getting the right perspective before passing such harsh judgments.
Click to expand...

Would you like to clarify and specifically point out where this happened, what SnakeLord assumed and what Kant intended, please?
 
What about stories that claim to be true?

I want to tell you some important things before we start our journey.

I lived through it all. That's one problem about relating events in the first person. The reader knows the narrator didn't get killed. So whatever might happen to me--whatever did happen to me--you can be sure I lived through it all, though I might be a little better or worse for the experience, and you can make up your own mind which.

There might be some places where you'll say, "Hey, how come he knows this event right here happened or this person said or did this or that if he wasn't even there?" The answer to that question is that I found out enoguh later on to fill in the blanks, or in some cases I made up what happened, or in other cases I figured it ought to have happened that way even if it didn't ....

(Robert McCammon, Boy's Life, p. 1)
Click to expand...
If, in the aftermath of the human species, the alien anthropologists found only a limited amount of our texts, and there was nothing to contradict the fragments of the "McCammon Manuscript" (e.g. the part of the book that says "fiction" is missing in the recovered copy) does that make it true?

There are certain questions concerning the nature of the Biblical narrative. Elaine Pagels makes compelling arguments toward a relationship between the content of the gospels and the politics of the day (cf. - The Origin of Satan). The procedures of the Sanheidren are askew, Pilate is characterized uniquely compared to other descriptions of his term (e.g. Josephus). There even exist suggestions that the blaming of the Jews in the Bible for the death of Jesus is a political concession to the Romans; it is demonstrable that Christians appealed to Roman favor by criticizing of the Jews (e.g. - Justin Martyr, Barnabas).

I'm not out to build an argument that the whole of Christianity hates Judaism. Rather, the point is that while many characters and places may have actually existed (e.g. Jerusalem, Pontius Pilate) the Biblical authors appear to have taken certain liberties in describing the events which render the factual nature of the Bible inaccurate.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:
 
"Can the historical and physical fact of the Resurrection of Jesus be found in Scripture?
"

Why presuppose it as a fact?
 
Oh Don, well then why don't you do me a huge favour and point out something specific?

He said a working knowledge of the bible isnt needed because among christians there is 'common knowledge' and 'general fact'. I replied the same goes for Hindus down the road and ended with the question: Does that make it true.

He said he used the bible as support about who was in the tomb, i responded saying biblical support was pointless because it contradicts itself several times on that issue.

He also said it's easy for people to write fiction based on their experiences- i said the same applied 2000+ years ago.

If you let me know, i'll be able to see what i missed.
 
He said a working knowledge of the bible isnt needed because among christians there is 'common knowledge' and 'general fact'. I replied the same goes for Hindus down the road and ended with the question: Does that make it true.
Click to expand...

No. He was only making reference to that one particular instance as being something which need not the support of scripture, necessarily (though it is still there if need be), because it is a no-brainer. You generalized what he was saying about very particular point.

He said he used the bible as support about who was in the tomb, i responded saying biblical support was pointless because it contradicts itself several times on that issue.
Click to expand...
'

So what are you saying, then, that the bible is relevant, or not? In your first passage here quoted, you said that Kant must be silly because he did not think the scriptures were relevant (which was false), and now you are saying that they, indeed, AREN'T relevant. So it's like you're saying Christians are fools if they aren't familiar with scripture, but everyone's a fool if they look to scripture.

He also said it's easy for people to write fiction based on their experiences- i said the same applied 2000+ years ago.
Click to expand...

That would be fine except for the fact that, as expressed by Kant, those who write were not the kinds of people who would ever write imaginative pieces of literature. In fact, many of the biblical writings are, frankly, boring. So why are they so prevalent among so many millions of people over 2000 centuries?
 
No. He was only making reference to that one particular instance as being something which need not the support of scripture
Click to expand...

If you want to debate specifics in the bible isn't it better to have a working knowledge of the bible, and that specific part, instead of just being told by someone else?

For instance: Everyone has a 'general fact' that in episode 6:3 of Star Trek Voyager, seven of nine goes onto a borg ship and steals a transwarp conduit.

Without having seen Voyager 6:3 what room would you have to comment? Not to mention what if there were 4 or more different versions of Voyager 6:3?

In this particular instance there are several different versions of the same event. 2 angels, 2 people, 4 angels, 4 people etc etc..

If you have but one 'general fact' you know nothing concerning the issue. The only way to get the whole story is to read the damn thing yourself.

So what are you saying, then, that the bible is relevant, or not?
Click to expand...

If you want to debate it, of course it is. Can't really rely on a 'general fact' given to you by someone else. I mean seriously... think of all the poor buggers apparently doomed to an eternity in hell because they were born listening to someone elses 'general fact'.

your first passage here quoted, you said that Kant must be silly because he did not think the scriptures were relevant (which was false),
Click to expand...

No. general fact has no weight over working knowledge. Why listen to the priest, the neighbours, the parents when you can find out yourself? He said a working knowledge isn't needed, i say it is- regardless of what specific issue.

and now you are saying that they, indeed, AREN'T relevant.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it wasn't relevant, i said it was pointless. Pointless meaning it would not help support his 'general fact' but instead go against it because it's so contradictory you can't just make a 'general fact', apart from to say it's contradictory. If you want to debate the contradictions and point out how they're actually not contradictions please do so.

That would be fine except for the fact that, as expressed by Kant, those who write were not the kinds of people who would ever write imaginative pieces of literature.
Click to expand...

Blimey, how would he know that? Was he there? No? Enough said.

In fact, many of the biblical writings are, frankly, boring. So why are they so prevalent among so many millions of people over 2000 centuries?
Click to expand...

In fact, many of the old dinosaurs are, frankly, boring. So why do millions of people go out of their way to dig them out of the mud over an apparent 65+ MILLION years?
 
voyager rocks, and snakelord, you god, those last three posts, i couldn't have said it any better myself (i would have come dismally short actually). legend:D
 
Why, thank you Atheroy- hardly needed but nice of you to say. Unfortunately you're also dooming me to hell. My level of pride went up just a notch and now i can feel the eternal fires at my feet. But then again i guess it's alright as long as i understand it's jesus who's gave me the ability to argue against christianity and the pride belongs to him :D

Furthermore Voyager is cool stuff! However i do want to point out a slight error... episode 6:3 isn't about seven of nine, i was mistaken, it's actually entitled: Alice, and is about a spaceship with a mind of its own....

I bet some people just accepted my claim of voyager 6:3 being about the borg, which is why i state 'working knowledge' is better than 'general fact'.

Don: Now do you understand why its better to see/read the issue at hand instead of just taking what you're told as being truth?
 
Why, thank you Atheroy- hardly needed but nice of you to say. Unfortunately you're also dooming me to hell. My level of pride went up just a notch and now i can feel the eternal fires at my feet. But then again i guess it's alright as long as i understand it's jesus who's gave me the ability to argue against christianity and the pride belongs to him
Click to expand...
Ok Beelzebub, Lord of the flies. Thought you might need that to bring yourself down a notch.
 
Sure. But I already knew that from the beginning.
Click to expand...

So then why question me when i said okinrus was wrong in saying a working knowledge of the bible wasnt needed and 'general fact' would suffice with the issue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top