Author Topic: Jesus' resurrection  (Read 3458 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Babdah

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
  • Darwins +4/-3
  • “We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered
Jesus' resurrection
« on: October 07, 2011, 10:04:21 PM »
If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?

I read this and started to think about a religion that is closer to home, for it is the vodon or voodoo a mixture of African traditions with Catholic religion. they claim to be able to make zombies and use them as slaves i dont understand the whole thing about how they do except for the fact that they use something that is called a zombie powder. a scientist by the name of wade davis found out what the chemical was that caused this and it was called Tetrodotoxin or ttx. they can render the effect of the ttx to a mild form by feeding them something called the zombie cucumber, another drug that renders them almost emotionless. I was wondering was there something like this back when jesus was put on the cross that would cause hm to be the same as this religion does and still does today.
“We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered, afraid of its own forces, in search not merely of its road but even of its direction

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2685
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2011, 10:11:02 PM »
I.....uh.....you see, ummm.....Serpent and the Rainbow?

But seriously, seriously?
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2709
  • Darwins +219/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2011, 10:25:09 PM »
If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?

The idea that the resurrection was faked is an old line of thinking from perhaps the 1700's, when it still had not crossed skeptics' minds that the story of the resurrection might have faked, or Jesus might have been faked. Also, there is no historical evidence of any disciples, and a few of them were created for polemic purposes. Thomas is not a real name, and was perhaps to polemic the Thomas gospel. Judas is symbolic of the betrayal of Judea; the Jews killed Jesus. Even Christians can really only come up with two disciples: Mark and John. Whoever Matthew was, he just copied Mark's stuff.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline dloubet

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1373
  • Darwins +67/-1
  • Gender: Male
    • Denisloubet.com
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2011, 11:03:29 PM »
How exactly did the disciples die?

We have conflicting accounts of how the Judas character bought it, but what of the others?
Was the guy who denied the Jesus character three times one of the disciples? That's kind of counter to the question posed by the OT.

What did happen to the others?
Denis Loubet

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2011, 12:39:38 AM »
I keep hearing about this "the disciples died for jesus" idea, but where do these accounts come from?  The bible tells of Judus' death, but not of the others.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2011, 01:54:58 AM »
I keep hearing about this "the disciples died for jesus" idea, but where do these accounts come from?  The bible tells of Judus' death, but not of the others.

and Herod kills James
Acts 12:2(KJV)
 2And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

some good apologist b/s, (and who should better know?)
http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q6_apostles_die.html

Quote
Summary:  The Bible only mentions the deaths of two apostles, James who was put to death by Herod Agrippa I in 44 AD and Judas Iscariot who committed suicide shortly after the death of Christ.    The details of the deaths of three of the apostles (John, the Beloved, Bartholomew and Simon the Canaanite) are not known at all, either by tradition or early historians. The deaths of the other seven apostles are known by tradition or the writings of early Christian historians.  According to traditions and the Bible, eight of the Apostles died as Martyrs.  At least two of the Apostles, Peter and Andrew were crucified.


"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1290
  • Darwins +403/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2011, 04:24:04 AM »
Why did the Heaven's Gate people kill themselves if they didn't really know there was a UFO coming to pick their souls up if they did?  BTW, if you're a man consider this: these people castrated themselves for their beliefs.  Would you do that for a lie?

Why did the people at Jonestown willingly die for false beliefs?

Why did the Branch Davidians die for their beliefs if David Koresh was not the Messiah?

And how 'bout those 9/11 hijackers?  Would you drive an airplane into a building for a lie?

And here's another scenario to consider: Jesus (granting for the moment that there was a historical Jesus and the crucifixion accounts of the Gospels are relatively accurate accounts of a historical event) was killed for treason against Rome.  The charge placed on his cross was "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews."  I.e., he was killed for claiming to be the rightful king of Judea.  If so, then his disciples, as followers of a rival "king" to Caesar, could very easily have been charged and convicted by Roman authorities for the same crime.  Not for believing in the resurrection of Jesus, but for rebellion.  Believing in a resurrected god-man was not a crime in the Roman Empire.  The followers of Mithras (a very popular cult among the Legions), Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, etc. believed in resurrected god-men, and practiced their faiths openly.

If there was no historical Jesus, and the "mythicist" view is correct, then the apostles would have been convinced by mystical experiences of a heavenly, spiritual "Jesus" who performed the self-sacrificial rite for their sins in heavenly realms.  People have, and are convinced of various spiritual beliefs by, altered states of consciousness all the time.  UFO abductees, people who witness apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary, believers in the Celtic fairy faith (especially in ancient and medieval times, but it was popular until fairly recent modern times), Ayahuasca shamans in South America, Hindu yogis, etc. etc. all report profound experiences in altered states of consciousness which convince them of the validity of their beliefs. 

If you want to try and select one little group of mystic-experiencers out of the wide range of people having mystical experiences throughout history, and say that this one little group is right and all the others are wrong, then you have to come up with a way to debunk others' mystical experiences without debunking those of your preferred group.  Good luck with that. XD 

Otherwise your best chance would be to accept the whole body of mystical experience as pointing to the validity of the "perennial philosophy," but then you wouldn't get to proclaim that Christianity is the One True Faithtm anymore.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline Babdah

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
  • Darwins +4/-3
  • “We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2011, 10:44:19 AM »
Quote
If you want to try and select one little group of mystic-experiencers
I wasn't i was looking for a natural reason this action, resurrection, could of occurred. we know that opium is in that area so how do not know that something similar to him, like in the voodoo zombie ritual 
“We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered, afraid of its own forces, in search not merely of its road but even of its direction

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2011, 05:45:42 AM »
If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?

What makes you think that the Roman authorities would let them off with a slapped wrist if - at their trial - they started saying "oh, don't really believe it, sorry, I'll just be on my way....."?

Consider also: Legionary X is a secret Christian.  He believes wholeheartedly in the Christ, even though he has never seen him.  One day he finds out that he is on guard duty with an actual disciple of Jesus!  Managing to snatch a few moments with him, Legionary X reveals he is a Christian, at which point the disciple says:
"No no, it was all just a hoax!  Set me free!"
Is Legionary X more likely to:
A) Renounce his staunch belief in Christ and persuade his commanders to free a preacher that has been a thorn in the Romans' side for years,
or
B) Have pity on the Disciple who is clearly lying to try to save his own skin, and try to make sure that he is at least granted a matyr's death?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2011, 10:08:41 AM »
If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?
Heaven’s Gate, look it up.  Second, how did they die and what did happen after the “faking” if anything actually happened?  We have the holy bibbly saying that either they disciples were in fear of their lifes and hid or that they came right to the temple and started celebrating.  Again, we see that this book is just a mess, “zombie powder” or not.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Petey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 882
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #10 on: October 13, 2011, 10:26:40 AM »
If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?

You lost me at the word "intelligent".  These guys (if they actually existed) were mostly illiterate fishermen, who are continually amazed/surprised at Jesus' miracles (even when it's the exact same one he did a couple chapters back), can't seem to grasp the meaning of anything Jesus tries to teach them, and are generally portrayed as dopey, overly-credulous plot elements designed to make the Jesus character seem more profound than he actually was.
He never pays attention, he always knows the answer, and he can never tell you how he knows. We can't keep thrashing him. He is a bad example to the other pupils. There's no educating a smart boy.
-– Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

Offline dloubet

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1373
  • Darwins +67/-1
  • Gender: Male
    • Denisloubet.com
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #11 on: October 13, 2011, 02:47:41 PM »
Quote
You lost me at the word "intelligent".  These guys (if they actually existed) were mostly illiterate fishermen, who are continually amazed/surprised at Jesus' miracles (even when it's the exact same one he did a couple chapters back), can't seem to grasp the meaning of anything Jesus tries to teach them, and are generally portrayed as dopey, overly-credulous plot elements designed to make the Jesus character seem more profound than he actually was.

Wow! Was that as good for everyone else as it was for me? I need a cigarette.  ;-)
Denis Loubet

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #12 on: October 13, 2011, 02:55:52 PM »
indeed, that was good.   8)

Thinking of the disciples, it does come down to "really, that's the best JC could do?" 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline b2

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Darwins +0/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #13 on: October 13, 2011, 03:35:27 PM »
Simple answer is, Jesus resurrection was not faked. It was an actual historically documented event. The bible is historically accurate in every way. Even historians that do not believe in religion agree that given standard proof and documentation criteria, that the bible is more accurate and contains a higher standard of proof than most history books and the events contained in them. Not so hard to comprehend. I would ask any of you a simple question, and that is, why do you feel the bible does not qualify as a historical document? and a follow up would be, what evidence (historically valid) would you give me that the bible accounts are not historically accurate? Would be interested to see what you come up with. God Bless you Guys.....

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10969
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #14 on: October 13, 2011, 03:39:28 PM »
Simple answer is, Jesus resurrection was not faked. It was an actual historically documented event. The bible is historically accurate in every way.

And your evidence for this would be... where, exactly? The fact that the Bible says it's true? By that logic, any book is real

Even historians that do not believe in religion agree that given standard proof and documentation criteria, that the bible is more accurate and contains a higher standard of proof than most history books and the events contained in them.


LOLNO
Show me these historians who don't believe in religion but agree that the Bible "is more accurate and contains a higher standard of proof than most history books and the events contained in them"
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10361
  • Darwins +183/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #15 on: October 13, 2011, 03:43:15 PM »
Simple answer is, Jesus resurrection was not faked. It was an actual historically documented event. The bible is historically accurate in every way. Even historians that do not believe in religion agree that given standard proof and documentation criteria, that the bible is more accurate and contains a higher standard of proof than most history books and the events contained in them. Not so hard to comprehend. I would ask any of you a simple question, and that is, why do you feel the bible does not qualify as a historical document? and a follow up would be, what evidence (historically valid) would you give me that the bible accounts are not historically accurate? Would be interested to see what you come up with. God Bless you Guys.....
Does not sound like the simple answer to me.  Maybe the delusional one.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12247
  • Darwins +270/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #16 on: October 13, 2011, 04:40:22 PM »
Simple answer is, Jesus resurrection was not faked. It was an actual historically documented event.
Cool.  Can you show where these documents backing up the Bible's stories are?  And further, which of the Bible's accounts of the ressurrection are true, and which are false?  The different accounts can't all be right, after all...

The bible is historically accurate in every way.
So the Earth is 6000 years old.  Cool story, bro.  And Christians can drink poison unharmed, too.  Just like the Bible says.

Or did you not mean what you said?

Even historians that do not believe in religion agree that given standard proof and documentation criteria, that the bible is more accurate and contains a higher standard of proof than most history books and the events contained in them. Not so hard to comprehend.
I am curious as to who told you this, and why they felt the need to lie to you (or who told it to them...same deal, eventually you're left with a liar somewhere back there).

I would ask any of you a simple question, and that is, why do you feel the bible does not qualify as a historical document?
For the same reasons that the Iliad does not count as a historical document.

and a follow up would be, what evidence (historically valid) would you give me that the bible accounts are not historically accurate? Would be interested to see what you come up with. God Bless you Guys.....
1. Because it describes events that we now know did not happen as described there (Genesis, Exodus, etc.)
2. Because it was written to reflect the political and religious views of a particular tribal religion.  That is built-in bias, in the more "historical" parts regarding Israeli tribes, etc.
3. Regarding the Ressurrection accounts:  Because there's no reason to give the stories credit, because they contradict each other, and because their events should have been recorded elsewhere but aren't.

Thanks for playing.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #17 on: October 13, 2011, 04:50:28 PM »

Even historians that do not believe in religion agree that given standard proof and documentation criteria, that the bible is more accurate and contains a higher standard of proof than most history books and the events contained in them.

You....you're joking right?

Please show me any historical evidence that Jesus even existed.

Actually show me any historical evidence that Nazareth even existes at the time of Jesus.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12247
  • Darwins +270/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #18 on: October 13, 2011, 04:51:31 PM »
^^ And be ready for a quote from...the Bible!
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Malfunc

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #19 on: October 13, 2011, 06:07:20 PM »
In 1984 a tomb was discovered near the ancient quarter of Nazareth, inside the tomb were 5 stone sepulchres with names engraved on them - Joseph; Mary (wife of Joseph); James (son of Joseph); and JESUS (son of Joseph). The fourth was believed to be the wife of Jesus. Mere coincidence?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 06:09:03 PM by Malfunc »

Offline Babdah

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
  • Darwins +4/-3
  • “We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #20 on: October 13, 2011, 06:21:14 PM »
In 1984 a tomb was discovered near the ancient quarter of Nazareth, inside the tomb were 5 stone sepulchres with names engraved on them - Joseph; Mary (wife of Joseph); James (son of Joseph); and JESUS (son of Joseph). The fourth was believed to be the wife of Jesus. Mere coincidence?

well, i kind of though that Mary Magdalene was his wife?
“We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered, afraid of its own forces, in search not merely of its road but even of its direction

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #21 on: October 13, 2011, 06:54:16 PM »
Simple answer is, Jesus resurrection was not faked. It was an actual historically documented event. ..

what evidence (historically valid) would you give me that the bible accounts are not historically accurate? Would be interested to see what you come up with. God Bless you Guys.....

The bible claims christians with faith the size of a mustard seed can perform miracles and healings, and that christians did and will do these things, but in fact they don't therefore those claims are false and the bible is not historically true.

The claim that languages evolved from the Tower of Babel incident is not true nor historical, be know how languages evolve now.

We know that practically all of the astrological claims about the nature of stars and moons were wrong, and therefor not historical.

We know that a single star millions of miles away cannot guide anybody to any house. We know about trigonometry and know that that claim was not true and therefore not historical.

We know that there was no Exodus of millions of jews from Egypt and that no first born death plague occurred. That was not historical either.

The biblical claim that bats are birds, insects have 4 legs, and that rabbits chew their cud are not true and therefore are not historical.

The bible claim about the great flood and the re-population of the earth through Noah is completely counter to even high school physics, geology, biology, zoology, and genetics. We know that it is not true and therefore not historical.

I could go on and on, but I'll let you chew on that mouthful before I offer another byte.
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline b2

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Darwins +0/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #22 on: October 13, 2011, 08:17:04 PM »
Cool. You guys are really engaged here on this forum. Nice to see you're passionate about your beliefs. Be patient folks, there's only one of me and by the looks of things, you're throwing out alot of comments. So let me start here. basically, no one in any of your comments, has given me one shred of evidence against God. You are very emotional about what you believe, but I haven't seen one logical defense of your position. Sound bytes are cool, but not logical. Next, There's no way that I am going to convince you that you are wrong. I am not capable of that. All i can do is provide evidence that I feel proves the existence of God.  From there, you either say I'm not buying this stuff, or, perhaps there is something to his position.

Either way, you have the freedom to choose. God made you that way. You don't have to believe in HIM. You are exercising that right here on this forum. You may find it hard to believe, but he is bummed out about that, cause he'd rather have you spend eternity with him...but he won't dishonor your right to choose.  You will have to be accountable for your decision, but you know that already...

Funny thing is, I find people who spend so much time trying to get people to believe there is no God, actually don't know very much about HIM, or about the bible itself. based on what I just saw for comments, you misquote and twist almost every statement about the bible and the Christian faith. The burden of proof is not on Christians, but the burden rests on you to say there is no evidence of God. because there is tons of evidence everywhere. yes, Josephus comes to mind, surely you've heard of him. he was a roman Jewish historian.Tacitus? A Roman Historian. Not religious fellows, but historians.

 Just because you choose to ignore it, and throw out every reasonable explanation doesn't mean you're view is right. It just means you don't want to believe....OK....gee...swell argument you have there...ummmmmmm...really hate the whole God thing...so....i just won't believe....and here's why....well....just because. Cmon lads, you can do better than that. How about a succinct statement. I don't believe in God because......just give me one at a time...

I think you'll find if you stop and look at this with a open mind and reason....that science and God are not mutually exclusive. Science was created by God, and prooves his existence. OK if we go that route?

I know I was not specific to your comments, and I apologize. I'm short on time this evening, but will be back with specific comments...if you're willing to listen. If not..... oh well...your choice. But I will pray to the One true God in heaven for you guys and gals tonight. be back in a bit.......adios

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #23 on: October 13, 2011, 09:34:11 PM »
Cool. You guys are really engaged here on this forum. Nice to see you're passionate about your beliefs.

A non-belief is a belief?  Uh...


Quote
Be patient folks, there's only one of me and by the looks of things, you're throwing out alot of comments.


If you start to feel overwhelmed with comments, it's your right to state so and ask that everyone slow down and give you time to respond.


Quote
So let me start here. basically, no one in any of your comments, has given me one shred of evidence against God. You are very emotional about what you believe, but I haven't seen one logical defense of your position. Sound bytes are cool, but not logical. Next, There's no way that I am going to convince you that you are wrong. I am not capable of that.

So what would you consider evidence against the existence of god?


Quote
All i can do is provide evidence that I feel proves the existence of God.  From there, you either say I'm not buying this stuff, or, perhaps there is something to his position.


Please do so then.  We're only atheists because we have not seen evidence for the existence of god.  If there was evidence, then we would believe.  Perhaps we wouldn't know what to make of it, but we would have to admit that something is going on here.


Quote
Either way, you have the freedom to choose. God made you that way. You don't have to believe in HIM. You are exercising that right here on this forum. You may find it hard to believe, but he is bummed out about that, cause he'd rather have you spend eternity with him...but he won't dishonor your right to choose.  You will have to be accountable for your decision, but you know that already...


Does that includes a one-way trip into eternal torment?  One would think that a god that respects our "right to choose" would not condemn us to eternal torment for making the wrong choice.  What if we're just mistaken; what will god do then?


Quote
Funny thing is, I find people who spend so much time trying to get people to believe there is no God, actually don't know very much about HIM, or about the bible itself.

I think you're in for a surprise then.


Quote
based on what I just saw for comments, you misquote and twist almost every statement about the bible and the Christian faith.


Well then, hopefully, you'll be able to explain it to us.



Quote
The burden of proof is not on Christians, but the burden rests on you to say there is no evidence of God. because there is tons of evidence everywhere. yes, Josephus comes to mind, surely you've heard of him. he was a roman Jewish historian.Tacitus? A Roman Historian. Not religious fellows, but historians.

How does burden of proof falls on someone that says there is no evidence for something?

We're quite familiar with Josephus.  Unfortunately, his words on Jesus are disputed.  Otherwise, this would've been impressive evidence for the existence of a man named Jesus, if not a man-god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

As for Tacitus; this guy was born well after the events detailed in the New Testament.  Historical accounts of Jesus would be more impressive if they were done by someone that lived at the same time Jesus lived.  Could you provide any?  (no, the bible doesn't count, as even the gospels were not written until decades after the purported events in question)


Quote
Just because you choose to ignore it, and throw out every reasonable explanation doesn't mean you're view is right. It just means you don't want to believe....OK....gee...swell argument you have there...ummmmmmm...really hate the whole God thing...so....i just won't believe....and here's why....well....just because. Cmon lads, you can do better than that. How about a succinct statement. I don't believe in God because......just give me one at a time...

If we hate god, why would we express this by saying he doesn't exist?  For your "succinct statement", I think most will respond with:

I don't believe in God because i have yet to see any soild evidence of his existence.


Quote
I think you'll find if you stop and look at this with a open mind and reason....that science and God are not mutually exclusive. Science was created by God, and prooves his existence. OK if we go that route?

Explain then; how does science "prooves" the existence of god?


Quote
I know I was not specific to your comments, and I apologize. I'm short on time this evening,

Tell me about it... this morning came and went before I even knew it...


Quote
but will be back with specific comments...if you're willing to listen. If not..... oh well...your choice. But I will pray to the One true God in heaven for you guys and gals tonight. be back in a bit.......adios

See you later.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 09:43:21 PM by Aaron123 »
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline b2

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Darwins +0/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #24 on: October 13, 2011, 10:33:10 PM »
Aaron 123, awesome post. A non-belief is most certainly a belief. You believe there is no God. Hmmmm....  i think :-)

I would consider the remains of Jesus Christ in sight for all to see as sufficient evidence. Bone, marrow, documented, authenticated papers that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did not rise from the dead. No resurrection, no belief. It's as simple as that.

Evidence of GOD, let me ask a basic question..why do you not accept the bible as a historical document when it has been proven to be very accurate. I will get one of many sources for you soon.

GOD does respect your right to choose. But he holds us accountable for our choices. Not a novel concept in our world. hell is not his wish, but he is just, and that is the consequence of non-belief. Don't look at me, I didn't make the rules.

perhaps I am in for a surprise. I apologize if I made a bad assumption. What is your background? I do realize there are many people who have turned from the faith, so I probably should have not made that statement. Typing too fast and not thinking first I reckon.

I don't pretend to know everything about something as complex as the bible. I'm not professing to be an expert. I'll leave that up to GOD.

Just because Josephus is disputed, doesn't mean his writings are inaccurate. And Wikipedia? Cmon now....Not hard to find people who disagree about the simplest of life's details. In fact, I think to get the real picture, you need to take all the evidence into account. I believe once you do that, it becomes quite clear that the resurrection and life of Christ is concrete. The individual gospels, historians, they all paint the picture. As for a man god, mere men don't rise from the dead. Would be interested to see what evidence has guided your thought process.

As for tacitus and the gospels, they were written with less of a time gap then any of other accepted historical figures of the time. You believe in Hannibal right? yet the time between his events and the documented proof was well beyond the gap in time found in the bible events describing Christ. And John? he was with Christ. Is that disputed? probably. But that's hardly a surprise. But there are just as many scholars who are confident that he is that John. In fact, the bible holds up very well when compared to most historical evidence of that time. Did I explain that well??? perhaps not. I am not the most gifted of communicators.

Is it fair for me to assume that the bible is a huge problem for the Athiest? For some reason, it is disregarded as some novel devised by man? To what end? I can't follow the logic but am eager to find out what specific problems you have with it.

Cheers!! God Bless You!!











 

Offline violatedsmurf80

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 392
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2011, 10:50:50 PM »
Quote
when it has been proven to be very accurate

Your right it has for other historical events not the fairy tales mixed in.

Quote
hell is not his wish, but he is just, and that is the consequence of non-belief

Last time i checked it wasn't just for non-believers it was also for thous who do not follow his laws in the old testament also.

Quote
it becomes quite clear that the resurrection and life of Christ is concrete

There are many stories stories that some one was ether resurrected or brought back to life, how does this make it true for this one?

Quote
Would be interested to see what evidence has guided your thought process.

The other myths out there that have the same theme, the epic of Gilgamesh, the book of the dead, the Norse gods. Just because they are not word for word they have the same theme.   

Quote
Hannibal right? yet the time between his events and the documented proof was well beyond the gap in time found in the bible events describing Christ

Have you ever looked at the Hannibal Code and the ten commandments, the ten commandment are just like them, or was it just common laws in those days. 

Quote
disregarded as some novel devised by man

Which one the Geneva, Constantine, or the KJV. Man did put the bible together, other wise it would be just scrolls.

 It is simple if GoD did exist and was active in our lives wouldn't you think that there would only be one Christian religion and not a ton of different interpretation of the bible?


 

« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 10:52:30 PM by violatedsmurf80 »
When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”--- Sinclair Lewis

I believe there is something out there watching over us. Unfortunately, it's the government.

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #26 on: October 14, 2011, 12:09:53 AM »
Aaron 123, awesome post.

Thanks.

Quote
A non-belief is most certainly a belief. You believe there is no God. Hmmmm....  i think :-)

This still strikes me as a strange statement.  Would not collecting stamps count as a hobby?  Would "off" count as a TV channel?


Quote
I would consider the remains of Jesus Christ in sight for all to see as sufficient evidence. Bone, marrow, documented, authenticated papers that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did not rise from the dead. No resurrection, no belief. It's as simple as that.


It's nice to see that you've laid down one possible bit of evidence that might sway you otherwise.  Though I have to ask; if Jesus was completely fictional (as in; a made-up character, thus, no bones to speak of) what would be sufficient evidence in that context?


Quote
Evidence of GOD, let me ask a basic question..why do you not accept the bible as a historical document when it has been proven to be very accurate. I will get one of many sources for you soon.

The main reason is the god character himself.  I do think aspects of the bible may be based on historical events, albit embellished in many cases.  However, the god character is one I have yet to see evidence of existence for.

I look forward to your sources.


Quote
GOD does respect your right to choose. But he holds us accountable for our choices. Not a novel concept in our world. hell is not his wish, but he is just, and that is the consequence of non-belief. Don't look at me, I didn't make the rules.

I don't really have too much to say here, as this is something I hear fairly often.  Though different people expresses this with different "volume".  Some spoke loudly of endless pain and torment, some spoke softly of "seperation" from god.  Do you go for the "endless pain and torment" idea, or the "seperation" idea? (though what "seperation" means, I'd imagine differs on the person)  Right now, I think my existence will cease to be once I die.  However, I don't think there's any way of knowing for sure.  Perhaps there is a 'heaven and hell' thing awaiting us.  Or perhaps the afterlife is much different than what we'd expect.  Perhaps we'll be reincarnated into a new body.  Perhaps some of us will become ghosts.  Or... we may cease to be.  There's no surefire way of knowing.


Quote
perhaps I am in for a surprise. I apologize if I made a bad assumption. What is your background? I do realize there are many people who have turned from the faith, so I probably should have not made that statement.


Actually, I am one of those that have "turned from the faith", and there are some other here that are likewise.  The background and reasoning will be different for everybody, so I can only speak for myself.  My reasonings had nothing to do with anger or fustration at my parents or church, or god or Jesus.  I think the pastors I grew up with were very nice people.  They often spoke of expressing kindness and love towards others.  I simply realized there wasn't any soild reasons to believe in this religion, or any others.  For more details, this fourm's parent site is a great place to look.  Have you read through it yet?  If not, I'd suggust you do so.  At the very least, you'll learn more about our thought process.


Quote
Typing too fast and not thinking first I reckon.

I'm totally with you there!  Sometimes, I type something, then an hour or two later, I realized I could've come up with something far better.  It can be fustrating sometimes...


Quote
I don't pretend to know everything about something as complex as the bible. I'm not professing to be an expert. I'll leave that up to GOD.

Well, I can't agree with the last sentence, but I do with the rest. (that is; I don't really consider myself an expert on the book, or its long and complex history)


Quote
Just because Josephus is disputed, doesn't mean his writings are inaccurate.


Actually, the issue isn't that his writings are inaccurate, but that his words about Jesus may have been added in by someone else.



Quote
And Wikipedia? Cmon now....

You don't have to take the wikipedia's words for it.  That page has dozens of links to other web sites and essays on the subject.  I don't know if there are any books dedicated to the subject, but I guess it's possible.


Quote
Not hard to find people who disagree about the simplest of life's details. In fact, I think to get the real picture, you need to take all the evidence into account. I believe once you do that, it becomes quite clear that the resurrection and life of Christ is concrete. The individual gospels, historians, they all paint the picture. As for a man god, mere men don't rise from the dead. Would be interested to see what evidence has guided your thought process.

The weakness of using the gospels as evidence is that they are not independent sources.  They are christians writings, forming the basics (or perhaps 'bread and butter' is more accurate) of that belief system.  Independent historians has more weight, I would say.  I've seen other people using a list of historians that talk about Jesus or christianity.  However, those lists tends to be unimpressive, as most of the historians listed are well after Jesus' time (they're usually from the 2nd century or late 1st century).  What I'd like to see is a long list of historians from when Jesus lived, and how they talk about/seen Jesus and the things he did.  That would convince me that the man existed at that time, and that he did at least some of the things attributed to him.  I probably won't be convinced of his divine miracles at that point, but hey, one step at a time!



Quote
As for tacitus and the gospels, they were written with less of a time gap then any of other accepted historical figures of the time. You believe in Hannibal right? yet the time between his events and the documented proof was well beyond the gap in time found in the bible events describing Christ. And John? he was with Christ. Is that disputed? probably. But that's hardly a surprise. But there are just as many scholars who are confident that he is that John. In fact, the bible holds up very well when compared to most historical evidence of that time. Did I explain that well??? perhaps not. I am not the most gifted of communicators.

Actually, I'm not familar with Hannibal, so I don't feel qualified to comment on this part.  I'll have to leave this up to others.


Quote
Is it fair for me to assume that the bible is a huge problem for the Athiest?


I don't understand the question. 


Quote
For some reason, it is disregarded as some novel devised by man? To what end?


I do not see the bible as inspired by/the word of an actual divine, supernatural being.  I do, however, see it as a collection of books, reflecting the culture and times it was written in.  In that sense, the bible is nothing to be discarded.  By reading it, we can gain insight on the values and beliefs of a certain group of people in a particualr region of the world.  By studying it, we can see how their ideas changed over time.  In that sense, it is a extremely important cultural artifact.  One that should be preserved for future generations to study. 


Quote
I can't follow the logic but am eager to find out what specific problems you have with it.

Great!  Hope you learn something.


Quote
Cheers!! God Bless You!!

I think you know how I feel about the last part, but the sentiment is nice just the same.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2011, 12:14:59 AM by Aaron123 »
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4881
  • Darwins +559/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #27 on: October 14, 2011, 01:20:39 AM »
Cool. You guys are really engaged here on this forum. Nice to see you're passionate about your beliefs. Be patient folks, there's only one of me and by the looks of things, you're throwing out alot of comments. So let me start here. basically, no one in any of your comments, has given me one shred of evidence against God. You are very emotional about what you believe, but I haven't seen one logical defense of your position. Sound bytes are cool, but not logical. Next, There's no way that I am going to convince you that you are wrong. I am not capable of that. All i can do is provide evidence that I feel proves the existence of God.  From there, you either say I'm not buying this stuff, or, perhaps there is something to his position.
Can you give one shred of verifiable evidence for God?  By that, I mean something that can be observed, measured, and recorded, the way scientific evidence works.  If not, then you have no room to criticize the fact that they aren't providing evidence, since if you cannot provide verifiable evidence for something, you cannot reasonably expect others to provide evidence against it.  It's a bit like the old schtick that the moon was made of green cheese; nobody could actually provide verifiable evidence for it, so it would have been more than a bit ridiculous for proponents to expect detractors to provide verifiable evidence against it.

Either way, you have the freedom to choose. God made you that way. You don't have to believe in HIM. You are exercising that right here on this forum. You may find it hard to believe, but he is bummed out about that, cause he'd rather have you spend eternity with him...but he won't dishonor your right to choose.  You will have to be accountable for your decision, but you know that already...
Analogy:  Joe thinks recycling is a good idea but is willing to accept that people have the freedom of choice not to recycle.  He's bummed out about those who don't recycle, but he respects their right to choose.  In fact, he respects it so much that he's not willing to exert himself to actually convince those people that recycling is a good idea, because if he does so, they'll lose their freedom of choice.  Oh, and there's a few books attributed to him, but the only reason they are is because the books themselves say they are.  The only people actually trying to convince are those who have read translated copies of the books and believe in them.

Now do you see the flaw in that?  Joe doesn't actually respect their freedom of choice because he isn't making the effort to convince them to exercise it in a responsible manner.  There is a difference between respecting the right of people to choose things for themselves and not lifting a finger to actually convince them, or even laying out the options plainly and unambiguously so that they can make an educated choice.

Funny thing is, I find people who spend so much time trying to get people to believe there is no God, actually don't know very much about HIM, or about the bible itself. based on what I just saw for comments, you misquote and twist almost every statement about the bible and the Christian faith. The burden of proof is not on Christians, but the burden rests on you to say there is no evidence of God. because there is tons of evidence everywhere. yes, Josephus comes to mind, surely you've heard of him. he was a roman Jewish historian.Tacitus? A Roman Historian. Not religious fellows, but historians.
The burden of proof is absolutely on Christians, and it is irresponsible of you to claim otherwise.  You are the one who is claiming that your belief is wholly accurate; the absolute least you can do is come up with convincing evidence to back it up, instead of throwing out a few tidbits and expecting the people here to convince themselves as a result.

The one paragraph inserted into Josephus's historical writings is not convincing; it is almost certainly a "stealth edit" made by a Christian after the fact, because it does not match Josephus's writing style, it does not fit where it was inserted, and there are no other mentions of Jesus anywhere in Josephus's writings.  And Tacitus wrote about Christians, not about Christ.  I don't doubt that there were Christians in Judea at the time he wrote about them, but that is hardly proof of anything except that there were Christians in Judea at the time he wrote about them.

Just because you choose to ignore it, and throw out every reasonable explanation doesn't mean you're view is right. It just means you don't want to believe....OK....gee...swell argument you have there...ummmmmmm...really hate the whole God thing...so....i just won't believe....and here's why....well....just because. Cmon lads, you can do better than that. How about a succinct statement. I don't believe in God because......just give me one at a time...
And you've come to that conclusion based on an extensive reading of all the information contained on these forums, I hope?  No?  Then kindly don't insinuate that they're just choosing to ignore and throw out this stuff.  For example, the stuff about Josephus is strongly contested and not convincing, and that has been demonstrated past a reasonable doubt.  The arguments for Josephus having written that paragraph are simply much weaker than the arguments for someone else having edited it in.

I think you'll find if you stop and look at this with a open mind and reason....that science and God are not mutually exclusive. Science was created by God, and prooves his existence. OK if we go that route?
By all means, go that route.  I think you will find if you keep an open mind and don't simply assume that your proposition is true, that you literally can not prove God's existence with science.  But by all means, feel free to present your case, though I would recommend that you do so in the Science forum so that you can keep the two arguments separate.

I know I was not specific to your comments, and I apologize. I'm short on time this evening, but will be back with specific comments...if you're willing to listen. If not..... oh well...your choice. But I will pray to the One true God in heaven for you guys and gals tonight. be back in a bit.......adios
As long as you're praying, perhaps you could ask God to provide some incontrovertible scientific evidence to demonstrate the accuracy of various Christian beliefs.  I mean, it can't hurt.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #28 on: October 14, 2011, 05:41:11 AM »
For some reason, (the Bible) is disregarded as some novel devised by man? To what end? I can't follow the logic but am eager to find out what specific problems you have with it.
What specific problems do you have with the Koran? 
What specific problems do you have with the Vedas? 
What specific problems do you have with the Vinaya Pitaka?
What specific problems do you have with the writings of the Bab?
What specific problems do you have with the Sri Guru Granth Sahib?
What specific problems do you have with the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki?
and finally....
What specific problems do you have with the Sharpe novels by Bernard Cornwell?  Why do you not agree that Richard Sharpe and Patrick Harper did not truly exist when so much of the information in those books is historically documented?

I am looking forward eagerly to the evidence you have that clearly supports the supernatural element of your holy texts (as opposed to the agreed historical features).  Unless and until you can point to something specific in the religious aspects of those books and provided evidence of its truth, there is no more reason for us to assume it is true than for any of the other texts I have listed.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?