Continuation of Christianity debate.

[MR. Nate]

Really? Is the transition from memory to paper really seamless? I remind you that the first written record of Jesus was from the year 70. Alot of details can be lost in the process of nearly forty years.

I think when John pointed out that there was no way to record all the things that Jesus had done. You're arguing that the most important 3 years of 11 men's lives would be forgotten, despite the fact that they dedicated their lives to telling others about that time. I'm not saying that details weren't lost, I'm saying I don't think that they forgot what was important.

There's no physical evidence that it did happen, so I will continue to assert that we don't have enough evidence to say that it did indeed happen.

What I'm saying there is no rational explanation to why no ever produced a body other than the resurrection. Lots of people had a lot of things invested in destroying Christianity in it's infancy, but no one ever came up with a better reason for the missing body than "The disciples overpowered the guards and stole it."

[vtmarik]

What I'm saying there is no rational explanation to why no ever produced a body other than the resurrection. Lots of people had a lot of things invested in destroying Christianity in it's infancy, but no one ever came up with a better reason for the missing body than "The disciples overpowered the guards and stole it."

Well, I can think of two possible reasons:

1) The grave's location was deliberately changed in the text to keep the body from being found.

2) The body was destroyed due to either natural or unnatural forces.

If the body was ever indeed located, Christianity would have been undone pretty damn fast. They would have had much invested in concealing/destroying any evidence.

[unriggable]

What I'm saying there is no rational explanation to why no ever produced a body other than the resurrection. Lots of people had a lot of things invested in destroying Christianity in it's infancy, but no one ever came up with a better reason for the missing body than "The disciples overpowered the guards and stole it."

They dumped it, maybe...

And ressurection is anything but rational. Are you telling me that this 'valid' reason is a guy transcending natural laws of physics and biology?

[daddy1gringo]

How does one know that Jesus did exist? Not trying to offend anyone.

Honibaz

No offense taken.

Although historians debate about exactly who Jesus was, whether he actually rose from the dead, whether he was indeed divine as represented by the writers of the new testament, etc, actual historians, even those who do not "believe in him" have no real question of his existence. He is mentioned in other historical sources.

For example, he is mentioned as a "seducer" in the Talmud, a work written by rabbinical authorities over a period of time that includes Christ's time on earth. Gamaliel, who was the mentor of Saul of Tarsus/St Paul was one of the contributors. When even your enemies concede the point, no need to debate it further.

Some years back Time or Newsweek had a cover story on "Who was Jesus?" One part of it was pages and pages of quotes by historians, theologians, scientists, world leaders, etc. There was only one that said something like "there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed". The name under this quote was something like "So-and-so, Chairman of the American Atheist Society" Someone whose only qualification was a predisposition. All of the serious scholars, whatever their field of expertise or opinion of his divinity, acknowledged his existence.

Hope that helps

[unriggable]

I have no doubt that Jesus did live, just not the Jesus we all know and love from the bible. His conditions seem to perfect (besides the crucifixion).

[daddy1gringo]

And ressurection is anything but rational. Are you telling me that this 'valid' reason is a guy transcending natural laws of physics and biology?

Once again, it is only irrational if you beg the question and presuppose the impossibility of the divine in a debate about whether someone ws divine.

[unriggable]

And ressurection is anything but rational. Are you telling me that this 'valid' reason is a guy transcending natural laws of physics and biology?

Once again, it is only irrational if you beg the question and presuppose the impossibility of the divine in a debate about whether someone ws divine.

It is just as rational as the "Bill (son of god)" article on uncyclopedia.org.

[vtmarik]

Well, since there's no evidence for the divine either, we cannot use that to judge the soundness of the case for the resurrection.

Without evidence, you can't assume it into existence. You cannot make bricks without clay.

If the divine does indeed exist, then the resurrection becomes possible. If it doesn't, then the probability of the resurrection becomes a case of "He probably wasn't dead and woke up after being sealed in his tomb."

The only really tenable position in the debate is the position that states that without evidence, no conclusion can be reached.

[griffin_slayer]

But worse than that he chose to spend his time in the company of men at most times, his "disciples". No interest in women ? Dieing a virgin, wearing a tiara (made of thorns admitadly), a love for robes and womanly looking clothing.

those were the people he chose to teach. crown of thorns. almost everyone wore robes back then ( almost all teachers of the law). take a look at the pope,what do you see him wearing.

[unriggable]

Well, since there's no evidence for the divine either, we cannot use that to judge the soundness of the case for the resurrection.

Without evidence, you can't assume it into existence. You cannot make bricks without clay.

If the divine does indeed exist, then the resurrection becomes possible. If it doesn't, then the probability of the resurrection becomes a case of "He probably wasn't dead and woke up after being sealed in his tomb."

The only really tenable position in the debate is the position that states that without evidence, no conclusion can be reached.

Divinity cannot be proven or disproven. That's the problem. That's why its impossible to know who the second coming is.

[MeDeFe]

But worse than that he chose to spend his time in the company of men at most times, his "disciples". No interest in women ? Dieing a virgin, wearing a tiara (made of thorns admitadly), a love for robes and womanly looking clothing.

those were the people he chose to teach. crown of thorns. almost everyone wore robes back then ( almost all teachers of the law). take a look at the pope,what do you see him wearing.

griffin, he was being sarcastic, he even said it himself, he doesn't support that theory.

[CrazyAnglican]

But 2 of the four gospels WERE by eyewitnesses, and we know (from manuscripts & fragments from the 1st century) that we've got what they originally wrote.

Really? Is the transition from memory to paper really seamless? I remind you that the first written record of Jesus was from the year 70. Alot of details can be lost in the process of nearly forty years.

" Hey! I knew this dead guy who came back to life". That is not a detail that you'd be likely to forget in 140 years, much less fourty.

I still have to disagree with you on this. The placebo effect is explicitly applied to treatments that can't help.

I'm saying that any kind of hope, including faith, during any period of grief is beneficial. So its not so much proof that there is a God streamlining the surgery (or whatever situation) as much as it is evidence of the theory of how important the patient's mentality is to the procedure. Same reason laughter makes the best medicine, same reason the mother tells the child undergoing surgery that the surgeons are the best in the world (even though they probably aren't).

Unriggable you still seem to think that I'm offering this as evidence that God exists. That this isn't my point at all. My point is that a religious life has some health benefits as supported by the earlier cited studies.


Your statement that any kind of hope is just as effective is not borne out by the studies. My reason for stating this is that the variable used in most of the studies were those with "no religious preference" or "no religion" vs. those actively practicing a religion. I do not think that people without a religious preference are necessarily without hope. Therefore there is a benefit to having a religion over not in this instance. If any hope were just as effective then there would be no difference in the scores of these studies. To say otherwise is to assume that those with "no religion" had no hope, and I don't think either of us believe that.

[luns101]

I'm not disputing that the idea of the apostles dying for something they knew to be a lie might be an argument in favour of the truth of the resurrection. (Although it's certainly open to dispute - I'm just not doing it here at the moment.)

I was saying, and Guiscard has repeated it, that there appears to be little evidence that the apostles were indeed killed for their faith in the first place. James is the only witness of the resurrection recorded as being killed in the Bible, and if Guiscard is correct (because I can't remember the story myself) a recantation of the resurrection story wouldn't have saved him.

Yeah, that's true all right. Eusebius & Origen wrote about the apostles being martyred. However, people dispute their writings as being credible. I haven't found any credible writings that dispute that they weren't martyred either though...so that's something to consider. The only argument that I've heard is that there is an absence of primary sources documenting that they were killed for their faith in Christ. For me, that's not enough to risk my soul on.

[unriggable]

Hey! I knew this dead guy who came back to life". That is not a detail that you'd be likely to forget in 140 years, much less fourty.

No, maybe you saw a guy in the year 33 who looked kind of like Jesus, and you think in your head "Is that jesus? Isn't he dead? Naahhhhhh, can't be him" but then you remember how he was the son of god (or at least he said he was) and then you think. "Is it possible?" And forty years is plenty of time to reinforce your opinion that Jesus came back from the grave.

Unriggable you still seem to think that I'm offering this as evidence that God exists. That this isn't my point at all. My point is that a religious life has some health benefits as supported by the earlier cited studies.

Glad we got that all sorted out.

[CrazyAnglican]

Hey! I knew this dead guy who came back to life". That is not a detail that you'd be likely to forget in 140 years, much less fourty.

No, maybe you saw a guy in the year 33 who looked kind of like Jesus, and you think in your head "Is that jesus? Isn't he dead? Naahhhhhh, can't be him" but then you remember how he was the son of god (or at least he said he was) and then you think. "Is it possible?" And forty years is plenty of time to reinforce your opinion that Jesus came back from the grave.

That's kind of a big maybe. Have you seen any evidence that says that that was even a possibility? There aren't any different accounts that suggest that are there? Even in the many extant noncannonical texts or non-Christian histories (like Josephus) this hasn't appeared as an option.

[luns101]

No, maybe you saw a guy in the year 33 who looked kind of like Jesus, and you think in your head "Is that jesus? Isn't he dead? Naahhhhhh, can't be him" but then you remember how he was the son of god (or at least he said he was) and then you think. "Is it possible?" And forty years is plenty of time to reinforce your opinion that Jesus came back from the grave.

Jesus was scourged, which produced huge strip-shaped lacerations on his body. His beard was ripped from his face. His wrists were nailed to a cross, which produced huge holes through his skin. A spear was thrust into his side. A "crown of thorns" was thrust onto his scalp, puncturing that area. Nails were driven through both of his feet.

I doubt he could have been confused with another man wandering around the neighborhood. I think you would just have to say, "I don't believe the Biblical account".

[Backglass]

I am no beleiver, but I strongly beleive he did exist.

Was he as much as people saw him to be? That I very, VERY doubt.

Yup.

His wrists were nailed to a cross, which produced huge holes through his skin. Nails were driven through both of his feet.

Didn't I read that it isn't physically possible for a human body to be suspended by three nails and remain hanging there...and that the images you speak of are actually "artists conceptions" rather than factual?

[luns101]

Didn't I read that it isn't physically possible for a human body to be nailed onto a cross in this manor and remain hanging there...and that the images you speak of are actually "artists conceptions" rather than factual?

I don't know...did you? Where have you been, by the way? Don't tell me you've actually been working instead of wasting time here with the rest of us.

[d.gishman]

Didn't I read that it isn't physically possible for a human body to be suspended by three nails and remain hanging there...and that the images you speak of are actually "artists conceptions" rather than factual?

Read up on Roman history -- crucifixion was used as a death penalty for murderers in an extreme case (I think it was very rarely used). However, you would be nailed on your wrists, not palms (or some sort of rope mechanism, i dont know). But yeah, crucifixion was an ancient form of death penalty, not just created for the story of jesus

[MR. Nate]

Didn't I read that it isn't physically possible for a human body to be nailed onto a cross in this manor and remain hanging there...and that the images you speak of are actually "artists conceptions" rather than factual?

I don't know...did you? Where have you been, by the way? Don't tell me you've actually been working instead of wasting time here with the rest of us.

Nah . . . if Backglass has been away, it's because he's taste-testing.

Your right though, a nail in each hand and one through both feet isn't enough to hold up an adult male. The nails were driven between the bones of the wrist, and there was generally a little platform for to "sit" on, while they were hanging (and not breathing)

Ugh, fastposted

[daddy1gringo]

No, maybe you saw a guy in the year 33 who looked kind of like Jesus, and you think in your head "Is that jesus? Isn't he dead? Naahhhhhh, can't be him" but then you remember how he was the son of god (or at least he said he was) and then you think. "Is it possible?" And forty years is plenty of time to reinforce your opinion that Jesus came back from the grave.

Sorry, doesn't work. They didn't just see him at a distance once. They Talked with him, ate with him, touched him even, over a period of 40 days. Also, as mentioned before, these were the people who knew him best, including probably his mother, who was certainly with all of them on day 50 at pentecost

[vtmarik]

Actually there was a special on National Geographic where they suspended a guy by a set of gloves that pulled from the palm up and showed that it was more likely that he was nailed through the palms than the wrists.

They also recovered an ankle bone from a 1st century victim of crucifixion that shows that the ankles were nailed to the sides of the cross rather than the front.

The most likely cause of death was shock, due to the extreme pain caused by the stress on the nerves in the hands and ankles.

[daddy1gringo]

Actually there was a special on National Geographic where they suspended a guy by a set of gloves that pulled from the palm up and showed that it was more likely that he was nailed through the palms than the wrists.

They also recovered an ankle bone from a 1st century victim of crucifixion that shows that the ankles were nailed to the sides of the cross rather than the front.

There may have been variations practiced.

I read a report by an M.D. describing that it was a diabolically ingenious way to force you to torture yourself to death. Hanging by the arms that way made it difficult/impossible to breathe. In order to take a breath you had to push up on the nail(s) through the feet. In doing that you were also rasping your whip-shredded back against the rough wood of the upright. Ugh.

[2dimes]

I don't believe in Romans. You've never met one have you?

They were made up by the Catholics that wrote the bible to take the heat off their friends the jews who actually run the vatican.

[luns101]

I don't believe in Romans. You've never met one have you?

They were made up by the Catholics that wrote the bible to take the heat off their friends the jews who actually run the vatican.

I nominate you to write a spinoff series of novels based on THE DAVINCI CODE