Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Gary View Post
    I don't disagree. My point is that there is no way to know if the story in Mark reflects the original "story" of what happened to Jesus after his death. Other than the vague creed in First Corinthians 15, there are no contemporary accounts of this event, either Christian, Jewish, or pagan, nor are there any accounts of this event from the following 30-40 years until Mark is written. That is plenty of time for the story to "develop" (be embellished), and, we have no solid proof that the author of Mark was an eyewitness or an associate of an eyewitness. The claim that John Mark wrote this gospel is based on very weak evidence.

    The argument that oral traditions were memorized and remained intact is undone by the fact that Christians claimed that over 500 people witnessed this event, therefore there would have been five hundred different versions of the story. How often do even two eyewitness accounts differ in at least some of the details? There was no ONE story to memorize. The variations between the four Gospel witnesses lists prove this. Then compare these witness lists to the witness list in First Corinthians and you see how different witnesses "see" different versions of the same event.
    This is where you're lost. Dunn's Jesus Remembered deals with this. The 500 eyewitnesses exist as people to question about the Resurrection. That's why Paul is mentioning them at all.

    Moreover, if the traditional attribution is correct, then Mark is using Peter's preaching as a source. As the books I've suggested illustrate, the evidence for the traditional attribution is actually rather strong.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      I'm inclined to agree. People see something that they can't identify and assign some (speculated) explanation to the event - however outlandish, the sighting itself is not pulled out of thin air. By contrast, the resurrection accounts point to a sighting of an identified object - no confluence. Likewise a "ghost" sighting would be wholly consistent with the "superstitious" beliefs of the time - the pains that the gospel authors go to in making sure that they are not considered to be talking about a ghost sighting or vision doesn't fit with the pattern of simple superstitious beliefs. Nor does anything in the atheists' criticisms address possible causes for why these accounts were believed. The story could be expected to meet with the same response then, as alien abduction stories do now.
      Scientists will not use the word "vision" to describe the claim that a living person has been visited by a deceased loved one. Scientists refer to such a claim as an hallucination. Here is what scientists say about these experiences:

      Mourning seems to be a time when hallucinations are particularly common, to the point where feeling the presence of the deceased is the norm rather than the exception. One study, by the researcher Agneta Grimby at the University of Goteborg, found that over 80 percent of elderly people experience hallucinations associated with their dead partner one month after bereavement, as if their perception had yet to catch up with the knowledge of their beloved’s passing. As a marker of how vivid such visions can seem, almost a third of the people reported that they spoke in response to their experiences. In other words, these weren’t just peripheral illusions: they could evoke the very essence of the deceased.

      Source: Scientific American
      http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-the-deceased/

      If so many people today experience seeing their dead loved in such real terms that they engage in conversation with the deceased, why should we be surprised at all that the grieving family and friends of Jesus would experience the same thing? Again, this is what the majority of skeptics believe occurred to give rise to the resurrection claims. We do not think that Jesus disciples sat around a campfire one night and made these stories up.

      Here is how it very well may have happened: Peter had one of these very vivid visions, then Andrew had a vision, then John had a vision, then more and more disciples are having visions, the story gets passed around and within months or years, the story is that Jesus had appeared to Peter, Andrew, and John at the same time, then to FIVE HUNDRED disciples at the same time, and forty to sixty years later, we get the story we have today in the gospels.
      Last edited by Gary; 09-12-2015, 01:22 PM.

      Comment


      • The Power of the Straw is strong with this one (stills see some short posts - not on my total ignore)


        Originally posted by Gary View Post
        Why did he have Jesus only appear to disciples, family members, and one rabbi?
        The guards needed to see him after the angel rolled away the stone?

        Christians have two answers for this question:
        whenever a skeptic tells you you have two options rest assured there are more than two. Three more off the top of my head

        3. God does not agree that his existence is not rationally quite obvious and thinks that doubt is based on sinfulness not intellectual honesty


        4. God knew that supernaturally, and in the future non supernaturally, appearances can be faked and are NOT the gold standard of evidence that he has spoken. A world where an appearance is the gold undisputable proof of God's involvement would be a world ripe for the most powerful of deceptions.

        5. God does not and never has had any intention of making the resurrection by itself as the sole proof of Christianity. You are full of straw

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
          The Power of the Straw is strong with this one (stills see some short posts - not on my total ignore)




          The guards needed to see him after the angel rolled away the stone?



          whenever a skeptic tells you you have two options rest assured there are more than two. Three more off the top of my head

          3. God does not agree that his existence is not rationally quite obvious and thinks that doubt is based on sinfulness not intellectual honesty


          4. God knew that supernaturally, and in the future non supernaturally, appearances can be faked and are NOT the gold standard of evidence that he has spoken. A world where an appearance is the gold undisputable proof of God's involvement would be a world ripe for the most powerful of deceptions.

          5. God does not and never has had any intention of making the resurrection by itself as the sole proof of Christianity. You are full of straw
          Even most of the Christians commenting on this thread do not believe that the "guard story" is historical.

          Your excuses for God choosing to send his "savior" to an obscure, unimportant, backwater corner of the Roman Empire, where his messenger keeps the message hidden in parables that even his own disciples cannot understand, instead of giving mankind a more assertive attempt to "save us", is pathetic spin. Even Paul says that the Resurrection is the central proof of the Christian message.
          Last edited by Gary; 09-12-2015, 01:28 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
            The Power of the Straw is strong with this one (stills see some short posts - not on my total ignore)




            The guards needed to see him after the angel rolled away the stone?



            whenever a skeptic tells you you have two options rest assured there are more than two. Three more off the top of my head

            3. God does not agree that his existence is not rationally quite obvious and thinks that doubt is based on sinfulness not intellectual honesty


            4. God knew that supernaturally, and in the future non supernaturally, appearances can be faked and are NOT the gold standard of evidence that he has spoken. A world where an appearance is the gold undisputable proof of God's involvement would be a world ripe for the most powerful of deceptions.

            5. God does not and never has had any intention of making the resurrection by itself as the sole proof of Christianity. You are full of straw
            6. Authorised representatives (apostles/commissioners) were sent out with the delegated power to perform miracles, those miracles themselves being evidence of the truth of their message.

            7. At least one of those representatives made it clear that the congregations had evidence of God's approval of the congregation, in that its members themselves could perform miracles. This one is quite telling - "you yourselves can prophesy, heal etc. is itself evidence not only for you but for outsiders". It isn't exactly logical to expect that the congregation would reply, "huh? How long since?" and continue to believe what they had been taught.
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • Originally posted by psstein View Post
              This is where you're lost. Dunn's Jesus Remembered deals with this. The 500 eyewitnesses exist as people to question about the Resurrection. That's why Paul is mentioning them at all.

              Moreover, if the traditional attribution is correct, then Mark is using Peter's preaching as a source. As the books I've suggested illustrate, the evidence for the traditional attribution is actually rather strong.
              I don't doubt that this is why Paul mentions the five hundred. The question is, however, did Paul meet and interview any of these five hundred to ask what they actually saw that they BELIEVED was the resurrected Jesus? Maybe all they saw was a bright light for five seconds, as in the photo above.

              "Moreover, if the traditional attribution is correct..."

              That is the main criticism we skeptics have of the Christian "evidence": It is mostly based on "ifs", "surelys", and "probablys" = assumptions.

              And if the evidence for your claim that John Mark wrote the Gospel According to Mark is "rather strong", as you say, why don't the majority of NT scholars agree with your claim? Again, you and others (hint, hint) on this site appeal to the majority of NT scholars only when it agrees with your faith-based (it just CAN'T be wrong) position.
              Last edited by Gary; 09-12-2015, 01:36 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                In reality, the written gospel looks extremely close to what oral preaching would look like. Mark's lack of order, as well as the abrupt ending and the "Markan Sandwich" all suggest an oral origin.
                Yeah, but Gary would rather have us believe that gullible, emotionally overwrought ANE peasants were clever and persuasive enough to get large numbers of people to buy into their made up stories instead. I'm pretty sure that if Gary had a DNA sample of Jesus along with fingerprints and a retinal scan from before the crucifixion, was able to pronounce him dead after the crucifixion, and saw him walk out of the grave after the resurrection and was able to get matching post-resurrection samples/scans, he'd find some way to disbelieve that it had happened.
                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment


                • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  Yeah, but Gary would rather have us believe that gullible, emotionally overwrought ANE peasants were clever and persuasive enough to get large numbers of people to buy into their made up stories instead. I'm pretty sure that if Gary had a DNA sample of Jesus along with fingerprints and a retinal scan from before the crucifixion, was able to pronounce him dead after the crucifixion, and saw him walk out of the grave after the resurrection and was able to get matching post-resurrection samples/scans, he'd find some way to disbelieve that it had happened.
                  Indubitably - he would be presenting a "Tale of Two Cities" scenario.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    Yeah, but Gary would rather have us believe that gullible, emotionally overwrought ANE peasants were clever and persuasive enough to get large numbers of people to buy into their made up stories instead. I'm pretty sure that if Gary had a DNA sample of Jesus along with fingerprints and a retinal scan from before the crucifixion, was able to pronounce him dead after the crucifixion, and saw him walk out of the grave after the resurrection and was able to get matching post-resurrection samples/scans, he'd find some way to disbelieve that it had happened.
                    Strawman. I never said that Christians made anything up. People who knowingly make things up are not willing to die for those assertions. The willingness of early Christians to die for their beliefs is good enough proof for me and most skeptics that they really did believe that Jesus had been resurrected.

                    If so many people today experience seeing their dead loved in such real terms that they engage in conversation with the deceased, why should we be surprised at all that the grieving family and friends of Jesus would experience the same thing? Again, this is what the majority of skeptics believe occurred to give rise to the resurrection claims. We do not think that Jesus disciples sat around a campfire one night and made these stories up.

                    Here is how it very well may have happened: Peter had one of these very vivid visions, then Andrew had a vision, then John had a vision, then more and more disciples are having visions, the story gets passed around and within months or years, the story is that Jesus had appeared to Peter, Andrew, and John at the same time, then to FIVE HUNDRED disciples at the same time, and forty to sixty years later, we get the story we have today in the gospels.
                    Last edited by Gary; 09-12-2015, 01:48 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Is Gary really a doctor? I don't think a doctor would be wasting their limited free time making hundreds of internet posts. I don't see any evidence that he is a doctor, for he doesn't realize that reversing brain death can be possible with the knowledge and power to do so. We just lack the current tech to do so. Anyone can claim to be anything on the internet.
                      If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                        Is Gary really a doctor? I don't think a doctor would be wasting their limited free time making hundreds of internet posts. I don't see any evidence that he is a doctor, for he doesn't realize that reversing brain death can be possible with the knowledge and power to do so. We just lack the current tech to do so. Anyone can claim to be anything on the internet.
                        Apparently it is possible to reverse death up to 24 hours after the event. Of course, the claim may be false or exaggerated, but the writeup did make it seem plausible.
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                          Even most of the Christians commenting on this thread do not believe that the "guard story" is historical.
                          As I have said before - you cannot think worth a lick. You were arguing within the context of what the NT said and indicated it did not make sense within its own context (and that God should have done something else). Arguing that it doesn't make sense within its own context because you don't believe the context is just being silly.

                          Your excuses for God choosing to send his "savior" to an obscure, unimportant, backwater corner of the Roman Empire,
                          Poor baby...claims there are only two answers and when shown he was fabricating starts crying because he has been shown to be wrong`

                          where his messenger keeps the message hidden in parables that even his own disciples cannot understand, instead of giving mankind a more assertive attempt to "save us" is pathetic spin
                          There are no parables that we do not knowing the meaning of. Try another bared face lie

                          Even Paul says that the Resurrection is the central proof of the Christian message.
                          Nope Paul States that resurrection is proof to those who believe in OT prophecy. No surprise that you are clueless on what 1 cor 15 states even though you refer to it. The gospel is not that Christ rose from the dead.

                          I Corinthians 15
                          3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures

                          Some man showing up saying he is resurrected is not the Gospel. Messiah ( a prophetic context) raising from the dead is. The resurrection just like the life of Christ must follow a prophetic context or we would not know it was from God . Jesus suddenly appearing to caesar without that context could be anything - including demonic.

                          Try again....there is hope you might get better.....I guess
                          Last edited by Mikeenders; 09-12-2015, 01:57 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            6. Authorised representatives (apostles/commissioners) were sent out with the delegated power to perform miracles, those miracles themselves being evidence of the truth of their message.

                            7. At least one of those representatives made it clear that the congregations had evidence of God's approval of the congregation, in that its members themselves could perform miracles. This one is quite telling - "you yourselves can prophesy, heal etc. is itself evidence not only for you but for outsiders". It isn't exactly logical to expect that the congregation would reply, "huh? How long since?" and continue to believe what they had been taught.
                            8. Given that we know how things turned out when he appeared to men once God knew that him always being present would end up with millions of people having to be judged swiftly (the idea that men would simply fall over and worship God has scripturally not been the case regardless of the level of revelation)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                              Is Gary really a doctor? I don't think a doctor would be wasting their limited free time making hundreds of internet posts. I don't see any evidence that he is a doctor, for he doesn't realize that reversing brain death can be possible with the knowledge and power to do so. We just lack the current tech to do so. Anyone can claim to be anything on the internet.
                              On another board there is one guy who claims at various times to be
                              • a super-scientist (with more "degrees in more fields than any combination of 3 [other scientists] put together")
                              • a surgeon with a slew of specialties
                              • a published economist (who used to be an advisor to the Finance Minister of Iran)
                              • a pilot
                              • a psychologist
                              • a geologist (who talked about gall stones forming in caves)
                              • a CPA
                              • an über-businessman (who started and headed several Fortune 500 companies)
                              • a FORTRAN programmer
                              • a farmer (with one of the largest organic farms in the country)
                              • a university professor


                              who is involved in the criminal justice system when not out racing the yacht ("in speeds of over 30 knots/hr on liquid and 40 knots on solid") that he owns and operates in contests all over the world and training Olympic athletes.

                              And yet somehow finds the time to average nearly 54 posts/day day after day for years on end.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                                I don't doubt that this is why Paul mentions the five hundred. The question is, however, did Paul meet and interview any of these five hundred to ask what they actually saw that they BELIEVED was the resurrected Jesus? Maybe all they saw was a bright light for five seconds, as in the photo above.

                                "Moreover, if the traditional attribution is correct..."

                                That is the main criticism we skeptics have of the Christian "evidence": It is mostly based on "ifs", "surelys", and "probablys" = assumptions.

                                And if the evidence for your claim that John Mark wrote the Gospel According to Mark is "rather strong", as you say, why don't the majority of NT scholars agree with your claim? Again, you and others (hint, hint) on this site appeal to the majority of NT scholars only when it agrees with your faith-based (it just CAN'T be wrong) position.
                                The majority of scholars BELIEVE that John Mark wrote Mark. To quote from Vincent Taylor, the burden of proof is on those who would assert the traditional authorship of Matthew and John and deny that of Luke and Mark.

                                Also, I actually work in the field, so your criticism is pretty unfounded. Most of us go where the evidence leads. History depends on assumptions, and sometimes those assumptions are wrong.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X