Continuation of Christianity debate.

[freezie]

In God We Thrust


My oppinion has been expressed.

[Jenos Ridan]

4 accounts written several decades after the event and several decades apart from each other? I'm not sure if that can qualify as evidence.

Are you disputing the details of the account or the basic premise? For the details (disregarding my belief in Divine inspiration) you may have a point, but as for the kernel of the resurrection, it becomes difficult to dismiss because they forgot over a period of time.

Faith is the driving force of all religion. If you try and engage on grounds of logic you are missing the point. Anybody who tries to argue that religion has a logical basis, or anyone who tries to suggest that religion is a fallacy will come to a point where they face the fact that religion is not science, and that most of us have some sort of blind faith.

There is logic within religion, but it has little external relation to science beyond the same drive for truth that motivates us all.

You say I'm misguided, I say you're deceived, and we're at the same place we started. I would contend that if you move past your presupposition that faith and science cannot work together, and take the raw data of both, (rather than the interpretations others offer you) you can come to a point where the science and the religion work in harmony.

How about we just cut to the chase and look at the fact, as determined by science, that the universe had a begining some 13 billion years ago. And that Einstein, trying to work this out because a begining didn't fit into his preconseption of the universe that never began and never ends. He came to the conclusion that there was, indeed, some sort of creator. Be it God, 'the Force' or three drunken green monkeys.

[Guiscard]

Time may cause memories to erode, but the major event around which that memory was formed is not forgotten. So, you may forget whether your grandfather's funeral was at Ferguson or Cole Funeral home, but the fact that your grandfather died, (or the detail that it was the 1st time you saw your father cry) aren't things that you forget, even after 30 or 40 years.

So if you want to argue that some details are amiss, I won't argue (I won't agree, either) But to say that somehow they made up the resurrection itself seems disingenuous.

And, just for the record, isn't the fact that they were written seperately and not simultaneously, but still agree on a number of details an argument FOR their accuracy?

I've been reading up on this stuff and having a think, and I'd actually like to pick up on a few things.

Firstly, in regards to the argument from Martyrdom, we actually only have two cases of evidence in the New Testement, and elsewhere in the same period, of people martyred in the period after Jesus' death. Firstly, we have Stephen, who was not a witness, and secondly we have James who was executed on a charge of breaking the law. There is no evidence whatsoever that he could have in any way helped his death by renouncing Jesus, nor any specific mention of the resurrection, and we are looking here at both Acts and at the history of Josephus.

So, no, actually, we don't have any concrete evidence whatsoever for the martyrdom of those who witnessed the resurrection.

[daddy1gringo]

I'm checking into more specific evidence, but as far as I know there hasn't been any serious historical questioning of the fact that the first century church was persecuted (and executed ) by the authorities, both Jewish and Roman. Jesus and the early church are mentioned in the Talmud as deceiver and deceived, and I believe the situation with this Christ cult is mentioned by some Roman historians. The suggestion that the executions of the apostles never happened catches me a bit by surprise, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

[luns101]

I'm not sure who Jack Bauer is, but my guess is he's some fictional character who performs impossible feats, like James Bond or Indiana Jones. The point is, the scenario is not likely.

You're close...

http://www.fox.com/24/

[luns101]

It seems a bit difficult to take the idea - that the apostles would not have died for something they knew to be a lie - as some kind of proof of Jesus' divinity, if there's hardly any evidence that the apostles were indeed violenty killed, and for their faith, in the first place.

I guess you would need to ask yourself, Stopper, if you personally would be willing to die for something that you indeed knew was a lie.

The fact that they would be willing to die for Christ means they believed that Jesus had actually died and risen again - the resurrection. If Jesus actually resurrected from the dead then that would be proof of his divinity.

[unriggable]

The fact that they would be willing to die for Christ means they believed that Jesus had actually died and risen again - the resurrection. If Jesus actually resurrected from the dead then that would be proof of his divinity.

Or it could just be the desert hallucinations kicking in. I seriously doubt that they all saw it - thats whats written. It could have just been one of them who thought he saw Jesus, and was later added to other parts of the bible for effect.

If the apostles told me they saw Jesus rise personally, I might believe them. But keep in mind that its word of mouth for hundreds of years, and then writing (without a printing press mind you) for another thousand and a half. Its like when a friend tells you a story about one of their friends, you see a few exaggerations. Imagine this only thousands of times over.

[luns101]

Or it could just be the desert hallucinations kicking in. I seriously doubt that they all saw it - thats whats written. It could have just been one of them who thought he saw Jesus, and was later added to other parts of the bible for effect.

The Bible records that the apostles were initially skeptical themselves. Thomas, in particular, refused to believe..."Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." Hardly people who are under hallucinations, but insist on proof.

If the apostles told me they saw Jesus rise personally, I might believe them.

They did by actually writing it down:

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.”

You have the right to not believe what that says, but John did tell you through writing it down.

But keep in mind that its word of mouth for hundreds of years, and then writing (without a printing press mind you) for another thousand and a half. Its like when a friend tells you a story about one of their friends, you see a few exaggerations. Imagine this only thousands of times over.

Daddy1gringo already addressed this on pg. 66. Once again, it is your right to not believe the process by which the scriptures were assembled.

[MR. Nate]

But keep in mind that its word of mouth for hundreds of years, and then writing (without a printing press mind you) for another thousand and a half. Its like when a friend tells you a story about one of their friends, you see a few exaggerations. Imagine this only thousands of times over.

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.

Perhaps you're more in line with the rich man in the parable with Lazarus.

[vtmarik]

I can write down in a book that I personally saw aliens from Planet 9 create life before my very eyes. Just because it survives for 2000+ years and people believe it doesn't mean that it actually happened.

Lots of people have written about dragons in mythology and legend dating back to antiquity, but has any proof ever arisen about them?

Just because something has endured for a long time and that it's believed by millions doesn't mean squat in terms of evidence or accuracy. Thousands believe that Kennedy's assassination was a cleverly built conspiracy, do we have to wait 2000 years before people take those claims seriously?

[CrazyAnglican]

Angelican, the placebo effect is where you think you will be saved when in fact it doesn't help much.

Hi unriggable,

I still have to disagree with you on this. The placebo effect is explicitly applied to treatments that can't help. That is things we know don't help (ie. lactate, in the study you cited). The subject gets better because she believes she will get better.

Your argument is backwards. You are applying the term placebo effect to make faith seem ineffectual, even though you haven't produced evidence that it won't work. Basically, it's a dismissal of the whole idea without having to deal with the evidence.

I'm not disputing the existence of the placebo effect. I'm pointing out that, in applying that term, you are making an assumption (the inefficacy of faith) that you haven't proven, and in fact I've shown evidence to suggest the contrary.

[d.gishman]

I dont think the placebo effect is strong enough to make the blind see or the lame walk, such as what the gospels claim jesus did

[vtmarik]

I dont think the placebo effect is strong enough to make the blind see or the lame walk, such as what the gospels claim jesus did

Well, one explanation (since things like blindness can be caused by mental trauma) is that he was a hypnotist. "You feel no pain in that leg, you can walk fine," etc.

[CrazyAnglican]

Hey Anglican. One of the reasons my presecence in religious discussions has been waning is that I just don't have the time to properly compose a post which accurately conveys my opinion without sounding trite or condescending, which unfortunately my previous posts in this thread some ways did, dammit.

You and me both, my friend I can certainly understand.

I know somebody else earlier claimed that all the people who haven't been cured by God does not invalidate the ones who have. Well I disagree. To believe in a benovelent interventionary personal God I would require a level of consistency to support it. Why does faith heal one person and not the other, if the actual healing is coming from God. I could accept if all pious persons were healed and all those doubters such as myself weren't but this isn't the case either. Now I know you could say its down to God to decide who is healed and who are we to question it but that is the standard cop out which is applied to anything unexplainable i.e. There is no answer to this therefore we put it down to God being mysterious and who are we to judge.

Let me address this first by saying, I'm not trying to convince you that there is a God nor is anything I've said evidence that God exists. If you believe or not that is your choice, and I'm not about to try to make that choice for you.
I do not put things down to God being mysterious; I believe that we are here to help one another and not rely on God to do everything. My willingness and indeed obligation to love and help others is part of my faith not an obstacle to it.
Christianity, for me, is a very intense and constant cycle of self-critique, confession, absolution, and improvement as I try to be mindful in avoiding those sins I've committed before. Sure, I could pray "God I've been bad please forgive me" but I find it more effective to pray "Lord, what I said to _________ was wrong I didn't take his feelings into account. As you know I've asked him t o forgive me, but It was a proud and haughty way to behave please help me to remember that the next time I talk with him." Like anything else, if you do it half-heartedly you'll get half-hearted results.

We can bandy statistics around about religious faith and instances of recovery from illness etc but these don't provide full coverage of all contributory factors such as the socio-economic trends and so are incomplete. The thing is ultimately we agree that faith, albeit in God in otherwise, is a powerful tool in recovery and even prevention of illness, one which certainly shouldn't be ignored. However I believe should also be demystified.

I think we agree here more than you think. As I said, I don't see it as proof of God's existence. I've only stated that having faith has health benefits. Essentially, it's a component of a healthy lifestyle. I don't see it as any more mystical that statistics that suggest martial artists are injured less frequently in car wrecks. It makes sense. Martial arts develop good flexibility & reflexes and a tendency to be aware of your surroundings. Qualities that are handy in a car. Christians develop faith in positive outcomes. A quality that is handy in a health crisis. Remember I quoted that Christ said "Your faith has healed you" two thousand years before any discussion of a placebo effect.

And the spiritual crutch remark, which was indeed trite, was also misplaced so I will try and expand. I'm not suggesting I know what anyone puts their faith in, but its clear that having faith in something is beneficial. Faith in yourself combined with an understanding and acceptance of your own integrity and morality is essential and it sometimes seems that organised religion can act as a barrier to that self discovery by prescribing what constitutes these things and suggesting that they do not come from within. In some respects it excuses people from thinking too much.

It seems you really have three things going on here. If you'll allow me I'll treat them separately.

First your satement that faith in something is benficial is something I agree with completely and it was my central point all along.

Next your statement that "Faith in yourself combined with an understanding and acceptance of your own integrity and morality is essential....". I would agree with this partially. These qualities, while admirable, can lead to pride, self-righteousness, and intolerance of others. Accepting God, that is accepting a attitude of service to Christ, helps me with this. I tend to look upon everyone around me as another servant, with their own obstacles to overcome, and as such I'm a lot more tolerant of them.

Last your statements about organized religion, I tend to agree with. At its worst I say you're right, but I don't see it as average and certainly not at it's best. By far, the most common reason I've heard of for people leaving Christianity (that is among the ones I've spoken too) is that they've had a bad experience with one or more Christians and taken that to be representative of all Churches. That's why it isn't good to place faith in people as much as the words and message of the Church. Sooner or later a person will let you down; We are all human.

[Jenos Ridan]

As you quite rightly say (sort of), people using, say, Christianity as justification for their wrong actions is no reason to say that Christianity itself is bad. I think the teachings of the bible are quite clear and people living their life by the example set by Jesus are certainly to be commended.

If you read the same scripture in full context and as is, you'll find no validation for all the supposed evil done in the Lord's name. One can't really say that about any other religious text.

And thank you. We 'JesusFreaks' tend to model our lives as much as possible after our savior.

[Typherin]

[The truth to end all truths]

I have put years (minutes) of logical thought into this one over the years, The truth of my statement is so amazingly right it eventually brought my old Religious Education teacher to tears. This is the only logical proof that makes sense, if we are to believe all that bullshit in the Bible.


The Blindlingly Open Statement

"Jesus was gay"



"What?" I hear you say, let me say it again... Jesus was gay


The Uncontestable (but also unproveable reasoning

The basic priciple of allmost all life forms on our planet is that their meaning of life is to reproduce, It is hardwired into the genetic structure of every living thing on our planet. This is also very true with the human race, the average person is born with the instinct to reproduce.

And then we have Jesus, A man gifted with the power of god. And yet all through his miserable life he never once seeked to procreate.... A little strange I think. A man who could turn water to wine, feed an entire army out of his arse................

And he died a virgin.........

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.

Think about it logicly friends !

Jesus loved the cock !


Typherin

You'd never believe I actually studied History would you Well if theres one thing I learnt in my 5 years studying history is this.

It doesn't matter if my theory is complete and utter bullshit even in my OWN mind as long as theyr'e is some form of evidence based around it whoever minute it may be it's a possible and plausible theory

Oh and if Jesus was gay ? And the Bible claims being gay is wrong, we can assume the whole thing is bullocks surely !

[Stopper]

It seems a bit difficult to take the idea - that the apostles would not have died for something they knew to be a lie - as some kind of proof of Jesus' divinity, if there's hardly any evidence that the apostles were indeed violenty killed, and for their faith, in the first place.

I guess you would need to ask yourself, Stopper, if you personally would be willing to die for something that you indeed knew was a lie.

The fact that they would be willing to die for Christ means they believed that Jesus had actually died and risen again - the resurrection. If Jesus actually resurrected from the dead then that would be proof of his divinity.

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.

[Bertros Bertros]

The Blindlingly Open Statement

"Jesus was gay"

Where have you been the last few years? That Dan Browne fella proved Jesus had children with Mary Magdalene, what more evidence do you need?

[Honibaz]

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

Honibaz

[MR. Nate]

I can write down in a book that I personally saw aliens from Planet 9 create life before my very eyes. Just because it survives for 2000+ years and people believe it doesn't mean that it actually happened.

Lots of people have written about dragons in mythology and legend dating back to antiquity, but has any proof ever arisen about them?

Just because something has endured for a long time and that it's believed by millions doesn't mean squat in terms of evidence or accuracy. Thousands believe that Kennedy's assassination was a cleverly built conspiracy, do we have to wait 2000 years before people take those claims seriously?

If you saw aliens with another 500 people, and your grew and spread across the whole world despite the governments of the world killing anyone who believed you, and after 2000 years we had pretty much exactly what you had written, I'm sure people would be split on what you had seen. You seem to think that we believe BECAUSE the Bible is 2000 years old, not in spite of that. The evidence that Christ rose from the dead isn't any less compelling today than it was then, you simply have to shed your preconceptions that it couldn't happen.

I'm trolling because I believe all history is revisionist, and have a postmodern theory of knowledge.

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

Because 4 people wrote quasi-biographies? And no evidence against his existence, or death, exists? Essentially, the only people that deny Jesus existed are those who refuse to actually look at the evidence. (Read, "freethinkers")

[freezie]

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

Honibaz

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.

[MeDeFe]

It seems a bit difficult to take the idea - that the apostles would not have died for something they knew to be a lie - as some kind of proof of Jesus' divinity, if there's hardly any evidence that the apostles were indeed violenty killed, and for their faith, in the first place.

I guess you would need to ask yourself, Stopper, if you personally would be willing to die for something that you indeed knew was a lie.

The fact that they would be willing to die for Christ means they believed that Jesus had actually died and risen again - the resurrection. If Jesus actually resurrected from the dead then that would be proof of his divinity.

To summarize, we still have no example of a single apostle who was executed because of his religious persuasions. So saying that they were prepared to die for them is certainly a short jump in the argumentation.

And if they were, would it have been for this resurrection? Or maybe for a whole lot of other reasons? Furthermore, as things have been quoted here it seems that they didn't ask for any proof of Jesus resurrection, no they wanted to establish the identity of the person they reportedly saw. Would they truly have required proof of Jesus divinity? I doubt it. They had followed him for several years, they were "the inner circle" so to speak, they all either believed he was god incarnate and nothing could have persuaded them of the opposite or they knew he was not and had planned exactly how to go about reforming judaism.

As for 'dying for a lie', until we know if one of the "founding fathers" actually did... Would they willingly let several years worth of work fall apart? I don't think walking through the countryside was easy at that time, do you? Food, water, clothes, all the things you need in order to live, they can't be had for free, neither now nor then, it takes either work or money. Which means hard, low-paid jobs on a daily basis or begging, maybe hoping for gifts once you get some followers. Then walking from village to village, trying to get those farmers and workmen to even listen to you instead of going about their business of putting food on the table, getting in trouble with the priests who don't like an alternative interpretation of their religion, use your imagination, I'm sure we could come up with dozens of reasons not to do this.
However.
Once you have invested that much time and effort in something you'll want to keep it going. Normal, human reaction, you don't want what you've invested to go to waste, so you invest some more.

Just some food for thought.

[MR. Nate]

So you're saying they risked their lives by stealing the body, hid it where no one could find it, and returned to the hard life of begging & preaching, simply to not admit that the last 3 years had been a waste?

[unriggable]

No, the fact that the apostles and others who claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected does not in itself prove it to be true. It just dis-proves the idea that they made it all up. Lots of people give their lives for lots of beliefs and causes and it doesn't prove the belief true or the cause right. What it does prove is that the martyr belived in it. Who would die for what they knew to be a lie?
But in another sense, it does prove that Jesus actually rose because the conspiracy theory is the only alternative that is half plausible. The others are that the people who knew him best, (including his mother, she was there at pentecost) mistook someone else for the risen Christ, or that the Romans' time perfected method of execution failed to actually kill him, and he had a recovery any hospital would be proud of in a damp, dirty, sealed cave, and this barely-alive patient rolled a huge stone, defeated the guards, and looked good enough to pass for the victorious son of God. Those are scientifically and historically ludicrous.

I don't know what to say to this. This is not proof, its just a good argument. But then again it could be applied to anything that is historically disputed. Example: Any other religion. I haven't read the whole Bible, so I'm not sure if the apostles wrote their chapters themselves or not. Also, the apostles didn't die as previously mentioned, so that somewhat nulifies your argument.

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.

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).

[vtmarik]

you simply have to shed your preconceptions that it couldn't happen.

I don't think it couldn't happen, the only thing I'm saying is that we only have 2000 year old texts (written by people who did have something to gain by attaching their names to the book) witnessing the event. 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.

You seem to be confusing an unwillingness to take 4 men's words as (forgive the term) gospel with a rejection of the possibility of the/a Resurrection.