Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

You deconverted because whatever faith you had was built on sand. You were a grown man and you never actually stopped to think about why you believed what you believed until the first wind of skepticism blew your way, and you fell apart like a deck of cards. Now your evangelizing against Christianity with the same zeal that you probably had when you called yourself a Christian, cept your new worldview is just as shallow as your old one.

I was born and raised in a cult. I know all too well what it is to question everything I was raised with and believed, reject it, and build on something solid. The bitterness that you display on this forum is an indication that you never got over the emotional toll apostatizing took on you, but that's not surprising when your faith was based on emotionalism to begin with.

Thank you for your diagnosis.

What cult were you raised in?

[tabibito]

Did anyone read my whopper of a contradiction above? Jesus tells the disciples to go to Galilee in two gospels but orders them to stay in Jerusalem until the arrival of the Holy Ghost in another. You cannot harmonize these accounts...without twisting yourself into a pretzel. Wake up conservative Christians! These stories are NOT eyewitness accounts.

Rules for establishing which accounts are to be considered accurate are laid down in the Bible. There must be at least one corroborating witness, which leaves your criticism - even if it should prove valid - where, precisely?

And BTW, Luke never claimed to be an eye witness.

[William]

Rules for establishing which accounts are to be considered accurate are laid down in the Bible. There must be at least one corroborating witness, which leaves your criticism - even if it should prove valid - where, precisely?

Matt 28:8- end - Go to Galilee

Luke 24: 45 - end - Jerusalem

Acts 1 & 2, they're in Jersusalem

And BTW, Luke never claimed to be an eye witness.

does that make his witness more or less trustworthy?

[Gary]

Rules for establishing which accounts are to be considered accurate are laid down in the Bible. There must be at least one corroborating witness, which leaves your criticism - even if it should prove valid - where, precisely?

And BTW, Luke never claimed to be an eye witness.

So the rules for examining the accuracy of the Bible are not the same for evaluating the accuracy of every other historical claim?? Isn't that at odds with Nick's position? If your position is the Christian position, we might as well stop the discussion here, because your rules for evidence are from another planet or another dimension.

You are correct, Luke does not claim to be an eyewitness, but he does claim that his sources were eyewitnesses, and, Christians claim that "Luke's" editor-in-chief was the omniscient, perfect, Creator of the Universe, Ruler of Heaven and Earth!

[One Bad Pig]

Diocletion foiled God?

What? No.

If God wanted them preserved, I feel certain he could have.

Certainly.

Papyrus is not the only medium as many other people across time wrote on stone which lasted a very long time.

the point is, is that many of the things we're arguing over now could have been very easily averted and avoided - but they werent, which to me looks more like a mortal human error than a shortsight by a perfect and all powerful God.

You're being entirely unreasonable in your evidentiary demands. "Mortal human error" to write on the common medium of the time? Yes, people carved in stone, but the typical carving was much, much shorter than the works of the New Testament - and even plenty of inscriptions in stone from later in time are now lost and/or imperfectly preserved.

[William]

What? No.

Certainly.

You're being entirely unreasonable in your evidentiary demands. "Mortal human error" to write on the common medium of the time? Yes, people carved in stone, but the typical carving was much, much shorter than the works of the New Testament - and even plenty of inscriptions in stone from later in time are now lost and/or imperfectly preserved.

in order to believe such huge, miraculous claims, i need something more than what there is. I am not "choosing" here. Belief is a conclusion; an eventuality. I just dont buy this stuff, and am suggesting other means that would have eliminated some of the problems I and others have.

You're basically telling me, "hey, that's a lot of work, and you cant expect God to do all of that." It reminds me of Elijah's test for the prophets baal. What? is God sleeping? Is it too hard for him?

God can do what he wants, I just dont believe the human authors of the Bible really spoke for God. Why should I believe them?

Wear sandals, dont wear sandals. Go to Galilee, stay in Jerusalem. They met the angel inside the tomb, they met the angle outside the tomb sitting on the rock.... I just cant. and it seems like an awful lot of work is needed to try and reconcile the bible.


I mean look, we're arguing whether God is even real or not. Stupid or not, one way or the other, people genuinely feel differently about this point, right? SO why cant God reveal himself? He supposedly did in the past, according to the bible, yet people still retained freewill, right? why not now? If he did, then no one would have to question God is real or not, like I dont have to wonder if i had a mother or not, but can now make a more educated choice as to what I'll align my life to.

and some people live very morally who do not believe, while some who do believe live immorally. so we're not talking about ethics as much as pure belief in something. Like with History, there's no eternal consequence for what I believe or how much I believe it.

then we argue about when each book was written and whether it was edited or not. Preserved hard copies would eliminate that, no? God preserved the shoes of the Israelite sin the exodus, but he cant or is unwilling to preserve his bread of life in order to prevent some people for mistaking it as a product of man?

I just fail to see where I am being unreasonable considering the claims and what's at stake.

[tabibito]

So the rules for examining the accuracy of the Bible are not the same for evaluating the accuracy of every other historical claim?? Isn't that at odds with Nick's position? If your position is the Christian position, we might as well stop the discussion here, because your rules for evidence are from another planet or another dimension.

These are the same rules that apply in most situations where witness accounts are to be taken into account.

You are correct, Luke does not claim to be an eyewitness, but he does claim that his sources were eyewitnesses,

Eyewitness accounts are not inspired by God, and eyewitnesses are not often 100% accurate on detail - which is why investigators sift through eyewitness accounts to find the most probable sequence of events.

and, Christians claim that "Luke's" editor-in-chief was the omniscient, perfect, Creator of the Universe, Ruler of Heaven and Earth!

Many Christians do, yes.

[One Bad Pig]

in order to believe such huge, miraculous claims, i need something more than what there is. I am not "choosing" here. Belief is a conclusion; an eventuality. I just dont buy this stuff, and am suggesting other means that would have eliminated some of the problems I and others have.

You're basically telling me, "hey, that's a lot of work, and you cant expect God to do all of that."

No.

It reminds me of Elijah's test for the prophets baal. What? is God sleeping? Is it too hard for him?

God can do what he wants, I just dont believe the human authors of the Bible really spoke for God. Why should I believe them?

Wear sandals, dont wear sandals. Go to Galilee, stay in Jerusalem. They met the angel inside the tomb, they met the angle outside the tomb sitting on the rock.... I just cant. and it seems like an awful lot of work is needed to try and reconcile the bible.


I mean look, we're arguing whether God is even real or not. Stupid or not, one way or the other, people genuinely feel differently about this point, right? SO why cant God reveal himself? He supposedly did in the past, according to the bible, yet people still retained freewill, right? why not now? If he did, then no one would have to question God is real or not, like I dont have to wonder if i had a mother or not, but can now make a more educated choice as to what I'll align my life to.

and some people live very morally who do not believe, while some who do believe live immorally. so we're not talking about ethics as much as pure belief in something. Like with History, there's no eternal consequence for what I believe or how much I believe it.

The original copies would address none of your elephant hurl here.

then we argue about when each book was written and whether it was edited or not. Preserved hard copies would eliminate that, no?

I'm sure you'd find something else to complain about, like why the author's name wasn't written on it and there's no sworn affidavit or chain of custody attesting to its provenance.

God preserved the shoes of the Israelite sin the exodus, but he cant or is unwilling to preserve his bread of life in order to prevent some people for mistaking it as a product of man?

Scripture is not the bread of life; Jesus is.

I just fail to see where I am being unreasonable considering the claims and what's at stake.

I'm not surprised.

[William]

No.

oh, then what were you saying?

The original copies would address none of your elephant hurl here.

well that doesnt make sense. If the originals were well preserved and eveyone agreed they were the originals it would solve a few things - one) when they were all written, two) whether they were edited or not, and likely other issues.

I'm sure you'd find something else to complain about, like why the author's name wasn't written on it and there's no sworn affidavit or chain of custody attesting to its provenance.

you do bring up a good point, we dont know who wrote a lot of it. many of these issues could have been easily fixed by an all powerful, all knowing God. No need to get upset over it. And there are a lot of good things in the bible. there are some less than good things too, but mainly i want to know whether the the bible is actually from God and whether i can believe it's claims.

Scripture is not the bread of life; Jesus is.

this made me think of John 1:1. have you read it?

I'm not surprised.

are you being sarcastic or is it starting to make sense to you?

[rogue06]

Moderated By: rogue06

William, I just merged several separate posts of yours into a single response since they were replying to the same post by AP. In the future please don't divide your responses to a single post into several replies but combine them into a single response.

Thank you in advance

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[William]

Moderated By: rogue06

William, I just merged several separate posts of yours into a single response since they were replying to the same post by AP. In the future please don't divide your responses to a single post into several replies but combine them into a single response.

Thank you in advance

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

will do. sorry for the hassle.

and I enjoy the discussion here and appreciate being allowed to visit. really. I feel like I should leave, as I think we've pretty much offered all we have for each other, but as much as I try, it's too hard to stay away...

[Gary]

These are the same rules that apply in most situations where witness accounts are to be taken into account.

Eyewitness accounts are not inspired by God, and eyewitnesses are not often 100% accurate on detail - which is why investigators sift through eyewitness accounts to find the most probable sequence of events.

Many Christians do, yes.

So you are saying that the apostles Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to all these events, but, one of them says that "the car accident" was in Galilee while the other says "the car accident" was in Jerusalem...and you expect us to still believe that these two guys were eyewitnesses to this alleged event???

Come on, people!

[rogue06]

will do. sorry for the hassle.

and I enjoy the discussion here and appreciate being allowed to visit. really. I feel like I should leave, as I think we've pretty much offered all we have for each other, but as much as I try, it's too hard to stay away...

Welcome to Hotel California where you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

[Gary]

No.

The original copies would address none of your elephant hurl here.

I'm sure you'd find something else to complain about, like why the author's name wasn't written on it and there's no sworn affidavit or chain of custody attesting to its provenance.

Scripture is not the bread of life; Jesus is.

I'm not surprised.

You are not being unreasonable, William, not at all. But when dealing with idealogues, reason is not the primary foundation of their position. The belief that their position cannot under any circumstances be wrong, is the primary foundation of their position.

[Gary]

No response? Once again: Matthew saw a "car accident" in Galilee, and John saw a "car accident" in Jerusalem, and Luke says that Jesus told them NOT to leave Jerusalem's "car accident" until the Holy Spirit came...and Christians are trying to tell us this was the same "car accident"??

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the later ending to Mark and John chapter 21 in which Jesus does appear to the disciples in Galilee and even seems to prophesy exactly how Peter is going to die (upside down), and throws in a little Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration in the long ending of John 16. Wow! Voila! The discrepancies are resolved! Right??

Only if you are really gullible.

Sure looks to me like both of these "endings" to the story were contrived by the early proto-Catholic Church to cover up the glaring discrepancies of the location of the appearances of Jesus as recorded in the oldest manuscripts.

"John 21: There is general agreement among liberal and mainline Biblical scholars that the original version of the Gospel of John ended at the end of John 20. John 21 appears to either be an afterthought of the author(s) of John, or a later addition by a forger*. Most scholars believe that the latter occurred."