Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[LNC]

Nice job of putting words in my mouth that I or Ehrman never said. I never said Ehrman thinks Jesus considered the Jewish law to be inaccurate. When I referred to scriptures, I was obviously referring to that Ehrman thinks the gospels are historically inaccurate. Have you even bothered to read Ehrman's book? You seem to know nothing about him and what he thinks if you did.

 

Here is what you said exactly, so you understand that I was not putting words in your mouth:

 

And St. Paul's mentors disagreed with him on his conclusions about Jesus. Does this suddenly mean St. Paul is wrong and the Pharisees were right? Ehrman himself states in Jesus Interrupted that other scholars don't agree with him on all his views but he also points out scholars in general disagree on whether or not Jesus was a social reformer or an apocalyptic prophet etc but the majority all agree that Jesus was a Jew that approved of Jewish law and the scriptures are not historically accurate, so I fail to see how you pointing out the obvious about Ehrman's views on Jesus that he's already addressed himself in his book suddenly proves him wrong.

 

You said that Paul's mentors disagreed with him, I showed that your statement was not justified by what we know about his mentor. And, actually I have read Misquoting Jesus and wrote a 10 page review of his book, researching some of his scholarly writing in doing so. As I mentioned earlier, I have not read this book yet. So yes, I am very familiar with Ehrman and what he believes. Sorry, I guess I got confused by your run-on sentence as to whom you were referring when you made the statement about Scripture being inaccurate. Maybe you could use a little more punctuation next time to avoid this confusion.

 

You're making an anti-common sense thinking presumption here that 1)the gospels are historically accurate about the aftermath of Jesus' death, 2)the apostles didn't burn Jesus' body and that a body would still have been around to disprove the resurrection, and 3)that even if people had exposed the body of Jesus to disprove the resurrection, that people would have believed them. You yourself say Raelians were disproved in the 90s yet there are still Raelians today that believe in Rael. We've spent elsewhere about half of a 20 page thread showing you how Noah's Ark is fairytale yet you just ignored my posts and are still convinced that a ship that was smaller than the Titanic can fit two of every animal species on Earth. If people can still self-delude themselves in the face of direct counter-evidence today, what makes you think it would be any different in the first century where people were even more ignorant of science and rational thinking even if the body was exposed in the first century? On the other hand, if the gospels are historically accurate and Jesus really did raise from the dead, why is there no contemporary evidence of all those dead people who were raised when Jesus died?

 

Could you tell me why you consider it to be "anti-common sense" to consider the NT writings to be historically accurate about the aftermath of Jesus' death? Why you would think that the Apostles would have burned Jesus' body (which is not an accepted treatment of bodies by Jews)? Why those who had the most to gain by exposing the body wouldn't have done so anyway? BTW, they weren't expected to necessarily expose the body to the Apostles, but to those who could identify the body and put down the movement. I don't think that I would decide my actions based upon what people might do if I wanted to put down the movement, I would have done everything I could do, including producing the body. So, your making mere conjectures that don't make sense.

 

How much has the Raelian movement grown since the 90s? I don't hear about them at all, do you? How did you show Noah's ark to be a fairy tale? I don't think that I remember that. I only remember someone comparing it to some mythological event that wasn't really close to the biblical account. Even if I were to give you that, it wouldn't prove the Noah account false. However, if they would have had the body of Jesus, they would have produced it. There was enough motivation to stop the Christian movement as it was a thorn in the side of both Jews and Romans.

[LNC]

I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood you. But are you comparing actual science to talking snakes? I hope you know this is real life, not Harry Potter.

 

I'm sorry, but where did I do that? You may need to read my post again.

[LNC]

Ah...So it's "YES" then. You state that you do indeed believe in talking donkey's and the like and yet they don't qualify as mythical in your mind. If you can rationalize that man....good luck to you. In my opinion, you're completely delusional and desperate to make the bible look real to people. I gave you a chance to explain that you were rational and worthy of listening to and you blew it. You’re just a 'God said and I believe it guy'. That has no credibility here. I'm done with you. Good day sir.

 

Hey, if God can create the universe, then he can make a donkey talk. However, maybe you believe in magic, like universes popping into existence out of nothing...I wish you well in that belief. Good day to you too, sir. Good to chat with you.

[LNC]

Unfortunately, you cannot see your mind, or your thoughts, so do they exist? Hmm, I wonder...maybe you can try to prove that they do for me.

 

Ever heard of neuroimaging?

 

Sorry, you are confusing mind and brain. That is a brain scan, not a mind scan.

[Ouroboros]

Does this mean that (another Harry Potter spoiler)

Dumbledore is God and since Dumbledore is gay, God is gay, too?

I believe so yes. Actually,

since he's alone, and there's no She-God, he must be asexual. But since we're talking about God here, I guess it's more likely he is omnisexual. He fucks up everyone equally.

 

[Neon Genesis]

Could you tell me why you consider it to be "anti-common sense" to consider the NT writings to be historically accurate about the aftermath of Jesus' death? Why you would think that the Apostles would have burned Jesus' body (which is not an accepted treatment of bodies by Jews)? Why those who had the most to gain by exposing the body wouldn't have done so anyway? BTW, they weren't expected to necessarily expose the body to the Apostles, but to those who could identify the body and put down the movement. I don't think that I would decide my actions based upon what people might do if I wanted to put down the movement, I would have done everything I could do, including producing the body. So, your making mere conjectures that don't make sense.

 

How much has the Raelian movement grown since the 90s? I don't hear about them at all, do you? How did you show Noah's ark to be a fairy tale? I don't think that I remember that. I only remember someone comparing it to some mythological event that wasn't really close to the biblical account. Even if I were to give you that, it wouldn't prove the Noah account false. However, if they would have had the body of Jesus, they would have produced it. There was enough motivation to stop the Christian movement as it was a thorn in the side of both Jews and Romans.

The bible says that Joseph, who was a disciple of Jesus was the one who buried him and owned his grave. What if Joseph got a group of followers in the middle of the night to attack the Roman guards when they weren't looking, then they moved the body of Jesus and disposed of it in a way so that the body would be unrecognizable to anyone. Then, when Mary and the women showed up the next morning, they find the body missing and in a moment of desperation, convince themselves that Jesus must have risen from the dead and viola, the gospel of Jesus gets spread. Then maybe later Joseph and his culprits, desperate to believe that Jesus really did raise from the dead, started to believe it themselves. If L Ron Hubbard can convince himself of his own lies in modern times, it's not outside the realms of possibilities for the followers of Jesus to do the same. And how does simply saying "they would have exposed the body if it was all faked" prove that it wasn't? Again, you're presuming that the people who wanted to put a stop to Christianity would have found the body. And again, you're presuming that people would have believed them even if they did find the body. It sounds to me like you simply want the resurrection to be real, not that you actually know the resurrection to be real, essentially proving my point that even if the body was produced, people would still self-delude themselves anyway.

 

How much has the Raelian movement grown since the 90s? I don't hear about them at all, do you? How did you show Noah's ark to be a fairy tale? I don't think that I remember that. I only remember someone comparing it to some mythological event that wasn't really close to the biblical account. Even if I were to give you that, it wouldn't prove the Noah account false. However, if they would have had the body of Jesus, they would have produced it. There was enough motivation to stop the Christian movement as it was a thorn in the side of both Jews and Romans.

If false religions are determined by the lack of popularity, then Islam must be true since it's almost as popular as Christianity is. And it was in this thread here where I asked you how could Noah fit all the animal species on a boat that was smaller than the Titanic but you ignored me anyway like you ignored pretty much everyone in that thread which you seem to be doing all over again in this thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...hl=Neon+Genesis

[LNC]

Unfortunately, you cannot see your mind, or your thoughts, so do they exist? Hmm, I wonder...maybe you can try to prove that they do for me.

 

Ever heard of neuroimaging?

 

You guy's can continue to argue with LNC, that's your prerogative, but once someone identifies themselves as a nutcase (believes in mythical creatures) I'm done. You can argue logic until you are blue in the face and get nowhere. He's either a nut that thinks he's rational or just dumb. Either way, I have better things to do than argue with crazy people.

 

As my grandpa used to say, "Ignorance you can fix but stupid is permanent".

 

I guess when you run out of arguments, start calling names...

[RationalOkie]

I guess when you run out of arguments, start calling names...

 

You going to go to Science Vs. Religion and take the challenge?

[LNC]

The bible says that Joseph, who was a disciple of Jesus was the one who buried him and owned his grave. What if Joseph got a group of followers in the middle of the night to attack the Roman guards when they weren't looking, then they moved the body of Jesus and disposed of it in a way so that the body would be unrecognizable to anyone. Then, when Mary and the women showed up the next morning, they find the body missing and in a moment of desperation, convince themselves that Jesus must have risen from the dead and viola, the gospel of Jesus gets spread. Then maybe later Joseph and his culprits, desperate to believe that Jesus really did raise from the dead, started to believe it themselves. If L Ron Hubbard can convince himself of his own lies in modern times, it's not outside the realms of possibilities for the followers of Jesus to do the same. And how does simply saying "they would have exposed the body if it was all faked" prove that it wasn't? Again, you're presuming that the people who wanted to put a stop to Christianity would have found the body. And again, you're presuming that people would have believed them even if they did find the body. It sounds to me like you simply want the resurrection to be real, not that you actually know the resurrection to be real, essentially proving my point that even if the body was produced, people would still self-delude themselves anyway.

 

So, you want me to believe that a group of people who fled and hid out of fear, and denied that they knew Jesus were able to overpower armed soldiers whose lives depended upon them guarding the tomb? I think that explanation is less plausible than the biblical account. How do you explain the accounts of multiple people testifying to having seen Jesus alive from the dead, including a group of 500 at the same time. It seems highly implausible to chalk that up to mass hallucination since it was so many people and in a variety of locations and times, including those who were either skeptical of Jesus' claims (James and Jude) and those hostile to Jesus (Paul). It just seems completely implausible to explain it this way.

 

As for L. Ron Hubbard, I am not convinced that he was convinced about what he was teaching. He had much to gain in propagating his teaching as he became a multimillionaire, gained power, fame, and all the attributes that go with these. His followers also hoped to gain these attributes by following his teaching. Contrast that with the Apostles and early Christians who gained nothing but persecution and, for many, brutal execution. Yet, none renounced the belief that Jesus rose from the dead, including those who would have known it to be a lie (those who, as you claim, would have moved the body). There would have been no logical reason for them to maintain the lie.

 

Why wouldn't the people interested in stopping the Christian movement have been able to produce the body. They had the location, the guards, and the power. What would have prevented them from producing the body? Also, they wouldn't have had to convince the Apostles that Jesus was still dead since you assume that they already knew. What they would have wanted to do was to convince those who were not already convinced to keep them from being convinced. Since those people would have had no stake in the movement, it would have quickly died off like so many movements before had.

 

If false religions are determined by the lack of popularity, then Islam must be true since it's almost as popular as Christianity is. And it was in this thread here where I asked you how could Noah fit all the animal species on a boat that was smaller than the Titanic but you ignored me anyway like you ignored pretty much everyone in that thread which you seem to be doing all over again in this thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...hl=Neon+Genesis

 

I never said that a religion's veracity is determined by its popularity. However, it a religion is not true that will eventually come out. Regarding Noah, you need to go back and read the account, it doesn't say every "species," it says every "kind" or "sort", it was a different taxonomic classification. I don't think I ignored the question, it may have been that I just didn't get to it before the thread was closed.

[LNC]

I guess when you run out of arguments, start calling names...

 

You going to go to Science Vs. Religion and take the challenge?

 

I am not sure what you mean, maybe you can clarify. BTW, I have been in scientific discussions on this site. In fact, the first discussion that I was invited to participate in (by rsmartin) was one on the origin of the universe. As I remember we had a very lively discussion.

[RationalOkie]

I guess when you run out of arguments, start calling names...

 

You going to go to Science Vs. Religion and take the challenge?

 

I am not sure what you mean, maybe you can clarify. BTW, I have been in scientific discussions on this site. In fact, the first discussion that I was invited to participate in (by rsmartin) was one on the origin of the universe. As I remember we had a very lively discussion.

 

Good...knock yourself out. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=31178

[Mutate]

I heard an interesting theory from a Christian the other day. It was that because Christ was human and not all knowing, he genuinely thought he was only sent to save the Jews (hence, when he talked about not giving his help to gentiles "food to dogs"). It was only later he realised it was for all humanity.

[Neon Genesis]

So, you want me to believe that a group of people who fled and hid out of fear, and denied that they knew Jesus were able to overpower armed soldiers whose lives depended upon them guarding the tomb? I think that explanation is less plausible than the biblical account.

And you want me to believe that a group of people who fled and hid out of fear and denied they knew Jesus later claimed to see a magical dead zombie and then started going around preaching and performing miracles yet there's absolutely no non-scriptural evidence for this at all? And why is it less plausible than the gospel accounts just because you're too biased to accept the possibility you could be wrong?

 

How do you explain the accounts of multiple people testifying to having seen Jesus alive from the dead, including a group of 500 at the same time. It seems highly implausible to chalk that up to mass hallucination since it was so many people and in a variety of locations and times, including those who were either skeptical of Jesus' claims (James and Jude) and those hostile to Jesus (Paul). It just seems completely implausible to explain it this way.

What accounts are these? If you're using the accounts in the bible, then you can't use the bible to prove the bible is true. That's called circular logic and is intellectually dishonest. Again, if the gospels are historically accurate, where's the non-biblical evidence that all those dead people were raised from the dead at the moment of Jesus' death? Why do you keep ignoring me? Is there any point to me debating with you at all? Are you even interested in anything I have to say? I love how you start ranting about us making fun of you but then you turn around and make fun of me by claiming my alternative explanation is less plausible without explaining why. So says the xtian who believes in magical talking snakes and talking donkeys.

 

Contrast that with the Apostles and early Christians who gained nothing but persecution and, for many, brutal execution. Yet, none renounced the belief that Jesus rose from the dead, including those who would have known it to be a lie (those who, as you claim, would have moved the body). There would have been no logical reason for them to maintain the lie.

This is just the "who would die for a lie" cliche that's been used to death by xtians who just ignore everything non-xtians say. If xtianity is true because who would die for a lie, then Islam must be true, too. Muslim women suffer on a daily basis for Islam. Does this make Islam true? Islamic terrorists were willing to risk their lives for the belief they'll get 72 virgins in heaven when they die. Does this mean Islam is true? Atheists have suffered for their lack of beliefs as well. Does this mean atheism is true?

 

Why wouldn't the people interested in stopping the Christian movement have been able to produce the body. They had the location, the guards, and the power. What would have prevented them from producing the body?

Again, if the body was stolen, what makes you think they would even have a body left to expose? Why do you keep ignoring me? Are you afraid to answer me? Why should I bother debating with you when I've asked you this question multiple times and you keep ignoring it?

 

I never said that a religion's veracity is determined by its popularity. However, it a religion is not true that will eventually come out. Regarding Noah, you need to go back and read the account, it doesn't say every "species," it says every "kind" or "sort", it was a different taxonomic classification. I don't think I ignored the question, it may have been that I just didn't get to it before the thread was closed.

Does this mean atheism is true and xtianity isn't because according to recent surveys, atheism is growing faster than all religions?

[LNC]

And you want me to believe that a group of people who fled and hid out of fear and denied they knew Jesus later claimed to see a magical dead zombie and then started going around preaching and performing miracles yet there's absolutely no non-scriptural evidence for this at all? And why is it less plausible than the gospel accounts just because you're too biased to accept the possibility you could be wrong?

 

You are answering a question with a question, not an answer. I don't believe in zombies, nor do I believe that Jesus was dead when the disciples saw him arisen. So, how do you explain the change that occurred with the Apostles? They went from being scared for their lives to being willing to give their lives in a matter of a few short days. It doesn't sound like seeing a zombie would cause that change. Your explanation is less plausible because it is completely ad hoc. No one legitimately claims these days based upon any evidence that the disciples stole the body. There is still that little problem of the Roman guard at the tomb that you have not explained. So, you have a burden of proof that you must meet to make your explanation plausible, which it is not at this time.

 

What accounts are these? If you're using the accounts in the bible, then you can't use the bible to prove the bible is true. That's called circular logic and is intellectually dishonest. Again, if the gospels are historically accurate, where's the non-biblical evidence that all those dead people were raised from the dead at the moment of Jesus' death? Why do you keep ignoring me? Is there any point to me debating with you at all? Are you even interested in anything I have to say? I love how you start ranting about us making fun of you but then you turn around and make fun of me by claiming my alternative explanation is less plausible without explaining why. So says the xtian who believes in magical talking snakes and talking donkeys.

 

I am not using the Bible to prove the Bible true, I am using the eyewitness accounts as evidence. If you want to impeach the witness of these people you are free to try to do so, however, their witness is accepted even by skeptics with greater historical training than you most likely have, so I don't expect that you will be able to do that. There is no circular logic here, you simply misunderstand the argument. The evidence for the veracity of the eyewitnesses is handled as a separate argument, which I would be happy to walk you through if you want. I am interested in what you have to say which is why I spend time interacting with you. I wonder whether you are interacting with what I am saying, however, since you didn't answer my question above. Maybe, you can show that you are by going back and answering that one. You, however, offer up trite sayings such as reference to zombies, magical snakes and talking donkeys, without actually arguing the facts of the accounts. It seems that you may be more interested in "sound bite" than in real arguments.

 

This is just the "who would die for a lie" cliche that's been used to death by xtians who just ignore everything non-xtians say. If xtianity is true because who would die for a lie, then Islam must be true, too. Muslim women suffer on a daily basis for Islam. Does this make Islam true? Islamic terrorists were willing to risk their lives for the belief they'll get 72 virgins in heaven when they die. Does this mean Islam is true? Atheists have suffered for their lack of beliefs as well. Does this mean atheism is true?

 

This just shows that you really do not understand the actual argument, but have some preconceived answer that has no direct bearing on the argument. I am surprised that you would accuse me of not being interested in what you say when you misrepresent or misunderstand what I am saying. Tell me which Muslims died for what they knew to be a lie? The answer is none, they all believe that Islam is true. Now, if the disciples stole the body as you assert, then they would have known that Jesus didn't rise from the dead; yet, they went to their deaths claiming this to be true. The question is why would they if they knew it was a lie? Do you see why your analogy with Islam breaks down? Now, are you claiming that atheists suffer for what they know to be a lie? If so, then I will discuss that question, if not, they you show again that you misunderstood what I was asking in the first place. Now, back to the question, why would the disciples have gone to their death for what they knew to be a lie? (assuming, as you claim, they stole the body)

 

Again, if the body was stolen, what makes you think they would even have a body left to expose? Why do you keep ignoring me? Are you afraid to answer me? Why should I bother debating with you when I've asked you this question multiple times and you keep ignoring it?

 

Again, you haven't explained how they could have stolen the body, so, until you do, that question is moot. I am not ignoring you, you are ignoring or misreading the actual questions that I am asking - why is that? Until you deal with the actual questions we are simply talking past each other. So, please go back and reread my questions and statements and answer what I was actually asking and addressing, then we can interact with these issues.

 

I never said that a religion's veracity is determined by its popularity. However, it a religion is not true that will eventually come out. Regarding Noah, you need to go back and read the account, it doesn't say every "species," it says every "kind" or "sort", it was a different taxonomic classification. I don't think I ignored the question, it may have been that I just didn't get to it before the thread was closed.

 

Does this mean atheism is true and xtianity isn't because according to recent surveys, atheism is growing faster than all religions?

 

OK, this time I left my quote in there to show that you really aren't reading my responses before you type yours. Didn't I state that the veracity of a religion is not determined by its popularity? Now you ask me whether atheism is true because, as you claim, it is growing fast. First, I must ask you, are you equating atheism with religion? It seems so from your response. Yet, I will reiterate and put it in bold print, a religion's veracity is not determined by its popularity, or growth!

[Neon Genesis]

No one legitimately claims these days based upon any evidence that the disciples stole the body.

Funny because that's the argument Ehrman uses in Jesus Interrupted. I just dare you to go email Ehrman at his site and tell him he's not a legitimate scholar.

 

There is still that little problem of the Roman guard at the tomb that you have not explained. So, you have a burden of proof that you must meet to make your explanation plausible, which it is not at this time.

I already explained that they could have knocked out the Roman guards at the tombs and there's no reason to believe everything in the gospels are historically accurate but you just cover you up your eyes and plug up your ears and go "Nah nah nah, I can't hearrr you." You did this in that rants and replies thread constantly and if you're going to do that again in this thread, then I see no reason why I should bother responding to you and you should cut it out if you want to have an actual dialog.

 

I am not using the Bible to prove the Bible true, I am using the eyewitness accounts as evidence. If you want to impeach the witness of these people you are free to try to do so, however, their witness is accepted even by skeptics with greater historical training than you most likely have, so I don't expect that you will be able to do that.

Which "skeptical" scholars? The ones you happen to agree with? There's over 200 scholars in the Jesus Seminar and as far as I'm aware, none of them believe the gospels are historically accurate. Where's your non-biblical evidence that the scriptures are historically accurate? Again, I ask you, if the gospels are historically accurate, why is there no non-biblical evidence that all those people were raised from the dead the moment Jesus died? Why do you keep ignoring this question?

 

Again, you haven't explained how they could have stolen the body, so, until you do, that question is moot. I am not ignoring you, you are ignoring or misreading the actual questions that I am asking - why is that? Until you deal with the actual questions we are simply talking past each other. So, please go back and reread my questions and statements and answer what I was actually asking and addressing, then we can interact with these issues.

What, are you blind or something? Maybe you should go pray to God to heal your apparent blindness because I already answered your question. Here it is again and I'll even bold it for you so you'll be able to see it

The bible says that Joseph, who was a disciple of Jesus was the one who buried him and owned his grave. What if Joseph got a group of followers in the middle of the night to attack the Roman guards when they weren't looking, then they moved the body of Jesus and disposed of it in a way so that the body would be unrecognizable to anyone. Then, when Mary and the women showed up the next morning, they find the body missing and in a moment of desperation, convince themselves that Jesus must have risen from the dead and viola, the gospel of Jesus gets spread. Then maybe later Joseph and his culprits, desperate to believe that Jesus really did raise from the dead, started to believe it themselves. If L Ron Hubbard can convince himself of his own lies in modern times, it's not outside the realms of possibilities for the followers of Jesus to do the same. And how does simply saying "they would have exposed the body if it was all faked" prove that it wasn't? Again, you're presuming that the people who wanted to put a stop to Christianity would have found the body. And again, you're presuming that people would have believed them even if they did find the body. It sounds to me like you simply want the resurrection to be real, not that you actually know the resurrection to be real, essentially proving my point that even if the body was produced, people would still self-delude themselves anyway.

 

This just shows that you really do not understand the actual argument, but have some preconceived answer that has no direct bearing on the argument. I am surprised that you would accuse me of not being interested in what you say when you misrepresent or misunderstand what I am saying. Tell me which Muslims died for what they knew to be a lie? The answer is none, they all believe that Islam is true. Now, if the disciples stole the body as you assert, then they would have known that Jesus didn't rise from the dead; yet, they went to their deaths claiming this to be true. The question is why would they if they knew it was a lie? Do you see why your analogy with Islam breaks down? Now, are you claiming that atheists suffer for what they know to be a lie? If so, then I will discuss that question, if not, they you show again that you misunderstood what I was asking in the first place. Now, back to the question, why would the disciples have gone to their death for what they knew to be a lie? (assuming, as you claim, they stole the body)

Again, what makes you think the apostles knew the body of Jesus was stolen and what makes you think the people who stole it were against the Christian movement? Why is it impossible for Joseph, who owned the tomb and as far as I'm aware did not die for his beliefs, could have stolen the body and the apostles didn't know he stole it and came to the conclusion Jesus was raised from the dead when they found the tomb empty the next morning? Why do you keep ignoring this? Why do you keep thinking it was either the apostles who stole the body or people who were against Christianity and Joseph could not have done it?

 

 

 

 

 

OK, this time I left my quote in there to show that you really aren't reading my responses before you type yours. Didn't I state that the veracity of a religion is not determined by its popularity? Now you ask me whether atheism is true because, as you claim, it is growing fast. First, I must ask you, are you equating atheism with religion? It seems so from your response. Yet, I will reiterate and put it in bold print, a religion's veracity is not determined by its popularity, or growth!

This doesn't even dignify a response.

[Mriana]

What, are you blind or something?

 

I'm beginning to think LNC is. Actually, I think s/he is more than just blind, but it would be rude of me to boldly state everything I think.

[Ouroboros]

You are answering a question with a question, not an answer.

You mean, like in the Creation thread where the question is directed to you and other Christians, and you turn around and ask about Evolution instead? Right. You do it. So why can't someone else?

 

Oh, I see. You got a special "LNC can do whatever LNC wants, but no one else can" card from God... no wait... you're God, so did you give yourself that card?

[centauri]

...There is still that little problem of the Roman guard at the tomb that you have not explained.

The story about a Roman guard being posted at the tomb is only found in Matthew, which is the same Gospel that states dead people rose from their graves and were seen by many in Jerusalem.

 

I am not using the Bible to prove the Bible true, I am using the eyewitness accounts as evidence.

Assuming they are eyewitness accounts, they only appear in cult writings.

The cult then determined the canon of the Bible.

 

...Now, back to the question, why would the disciples have gone to their death for what they knew to be a lie? (assuming, as you claim, they stole the body)

Where does the Bible actually confirm that the disciples went to their deaths for their beliefs?

Outside of Stephen and James( the brother of John) being killed, I don't recall seeing that history.

[Ouroboros]

...There is still that little problem of the Roman guard at the tomb that you have not explained.

The story about a Roman guard being posted at the tomb is only found in Matthew, which is the same Gospel that states dead people rose from their graves and were seen by many in Jerusalem.

That's right. So if a whole bunch of zombies walked on the streets and preached the Gospel, then why didn't the Talmud write about it? It would have been a very extraordinary situation, and it's completely forgotten. It's more likely both parts, and more of it, are just made up.

[LNC]

Funny because that's the argument Ehrman uses in Jesus Interrupted. I just dare you to go email Ehrman at his site and tell him he's not a legitimate scholar.

 

Wow, that is funny. I guess he has given up on his twin theory argument. It was pretty lame anyway. So, now you say he has reverted to the stolen body argument. I will have to check that out. Many have unsuccessfully tried to debate this theory, I don't imagine that Ehrman will have any greater success than they did. You have to remember that Ehrman's expertise is not theology or history, but in textual criticism. That is why his debate with William Lane Craig regarding the resurrection (see link) was such a bust back in '06.

 

I already explained that they could have knocked out the Roman guards at the tombs and there's no reason to believe everything in the gospels are historically accurate but you just cover you up your eyes and plug up your ears and go "Nah nah nah, I can't hearrr you." You did this in that rants and replies thread constantly and if you're going to do that again in this thread, then I see no reason why I should bother responding to you and you should cut it out if you want to have an actual dialog.

 

Yes, and maybe aliens hit the guards with stun rays just before the Apostles came to steal the body. Where is the evidence? You can make assertions all you like, but the fact remains that the evidence does not work in your favor. You still don't explain why these same people whom you claim stole the body then went to their death for a known lie. Then you have to explain all of the other people who claimed to have seen Jesus alive from the dead. Then you have to explain why Paul was radically converted after he claimed to have seen Jesus on the road to Damascus. I could go on with other explanations that have to fit with your theory, which currently do not. So, you think that by simply proposing an implausible explanation that I am the one who is somehow acting irrationally? That argument doesn't work either. Sorry, if you are going to propose a theory it has to meet the test of scope and plausibility, for which your explanation meets neither.

 

Which "skeptical" scholars? The ones you happen to agree with? There's over 200 scholars in the Jesus Seminar and as far as I'm aware, none of them believe the gospels are historically accurate. Where's your non-biblical evidence that the scriptures are historically accurate? Again, I ask you, if the gospels are historically accurate, why is there no non-biblical evidence that all those people were raised from the dead the moment Jesus died? Why do you keep ignoring this question?

 

Let's start with Wolfhardt Pannenberg from Germany who is a skeptic, but who holds that the accounts are accurate. Then you can consider Gerd Ludemann. In regard to the Jesus Seminar, they begin with some unproven presuppositons that end up in question-begging. First, they assume that the supernatural doesn't exist, then they try to decide whether the NT accounts are accurate, and voila, they simply write off all the supernatural accounts of the NT. I wouldn't call that high level scholarship and they are considered to be pretty passe by most NT scholars today due to their presuppositional biases. I don't know why there is not non-biblical accounts for the people raised at the resurrection, sure that is an issue with which scholars wrestle, this does not mean that the event did not happen. It may be a strike against the account; however, there was no evidence outside of the NT for the existence of Pilate until 1961. Everyone thought that the history of the NT was suspect on the existence of Pilate up to that time and low and behold, an inscription was found with his name in some ruins and the story changed with the skeptics. All of that to say that just because we may not have external evidence, it doesn't mean that the event did not happen, just that we only have one attestation of the event so we look at it with a more skeptical eye.

 

What, are you blind or something? Maybe you should go pray to God to heal your apparent blindness because I already answered your question. Here it is again and I'll even bold it for you so you'll be able to see it

The bible says that Joseph, who was a disciple of Jesus was the one who buried him and owned his grave. What if Joseph got a group of followers in the middle of the night to attack the Roman guards when they weren't looking, then they moved the body of Jesus and disposed of it in a way so that the body would be unrecognizable to anyone. Then, when Mary and the women showed up the next morning, they find the body missing and in a moment of desperation, convince themselves that Jesus must have risen from the dead and viola, the gospel of Jesus gets spread. Then maybe later Joseph and his culprits, desperate to believe that Jesus really did raise from the dead, started to believe it themselves. If L Ron Hubbard can convince himself of his own lies in modern times, it's not outside the realms of possibilities for the followers of Jesus to do the same. And how does simply saying "they would have exposed the body if it was all faked" prove that it wasn't? Again, you're presuming that the people who wanted to put a stop to Christianity would have found the body. And again, you're presuming that people would have believed them even if they did find the body. It sounds to me like you simply want the resurrection to be real, not that you actually know the resurrection to be real, essentially proving my point that even if the body was produced, people would still self-delude themselves anyway.

 

No, really, I mean a plausible explanation. One that accounts for the post-resurrection appearances to over 500 people who all believed that Jesus rose from the dead. One that explains the conversion of James and Jude who were skeptical of Jesus during his lifetime. One that explains the conversion of Saul who was going around killing Christians. One that explains the fact that the Apostles went to their deaths believing that Jesus rose bodily from the grave. That is the explanation for which I was looking. An explanation that covers all the known facts in both scope and plausibility. That explanation above fails in these critical areas. Not to mention that it fails in the areas that you seem so intent on, that there were absolutely no witnesses who claim such an event occurred. So, you are asking me to believe something less plausible and with no attestation over that which is plausible and multiply attested. I thought you were a rational thinker.

 

Again, what makes you think the apostles knew the body of Jesus was stolen and what makes you think the people who stole it were against the Christian movement? Why is it impossible for Joseph, who owned the tomb and as far as I'm aware did not die for his beliefs, could have stolen the body and the apostles didn't know he stole it and came to the conclusion Jesus was raised from the dead when they found the tomb empty the next morning? Why do you keep ignoring this? Why do you keep thinking it was either the apostles who stole the body or people who were against Christianity and Joseph could not have done it?

 

OK, so now you want me to believe that Joseph, who was a follower of Christ, let the Apostles go to their deaths to protect his lie? However, you have still failed to explain the post-resurrection appearances, which you have not even mentioned up to this point. Even skeptics like Gerd Ludemann believe that the Apostles and other eyewitnesses believed that they saw the resurrected Jesus. So, how did Joseph pull off this little feat? How did Thomas see someone with nail holes in his hands and a place in his side large enough to place his hand? How did he come up with someone who could enter a locked room twice, yet still eat a piece of fish in their presence. Maybe you could add that to your theoretical explanation.

 

This doesn't even dignify a response.

 

Or, maybe there is nothing you could say except, oops. I will accept your non-answer here since you apparently misread what I wrote.

[LNC]

You are answering a question with a question, not an answer.

You mean, like in the Creation thread where the question is directed to you and other Christians, and you turn around and ask about Evolution instead? Right. You do it. So why can't someone else?

 

Oh, I see. You got a special "LNC can do whatever LNC wants, but no one else can" card from God... no wait... you're God, so did you give yourself that card?

 

Go back and check my answer.

[Ouroboros]

Go back and check my answer.

 

You mean this one from the "Creationist" topic?

I want to hear from Christians who don't believe in Evolution. Tell us in detail what you believe.

 

"I believe what the Bible say's" does NOT COUNT.

 

RO,

 

I am hesitant to jump too deeply into this one as I am already trying to keep up with two other threads and as you know, I am outnumbered on this site so I get behind on posts to me pretty quickly. So, let me ask you a question to begin. Could you please define what you mean by evolution and please be as detailed as possible. Based upon your answer I may have some additional questions or I may jump in with some thoughts, I will have to see what my time permits.

You see? The question was for you to give your version of Creation/Evolution, and that's how you "answered" the question (i.e. with a question).

 

But it's okay when you do it, isn't it? It's just not okay when someone else does it. Because LNC is special.

[Neon Genesis]

Someone please explain to me why I should bother continue to respond to LNC and trying to do the logically impossible of proving a negative when he doesn't get that it's his job to prove the resurrection of Jesus. I'd like to see one non-biblical evidence testifying that one of the miracles of Jesus is true. And I just love how he wants me to believe in talking snakes and magical zombies yet it's impossible for people to believe in something that's not true? And where's the non-scriptural evidence the apostles died for their faith? Last I checked, that was Catholic LEGEND, not historical fact. Even most scholars don't take those myths seriously. LNC has not demonstrated proof once in this thread that miracles are real. He's still not provided an alternative Christian explanation of how we came into being to counter evolution with and he wants me to somehow prove a negative? Someone explain to me why I should bother to continue to debate with someone who claims I'm persecuting him yet he can make fun of me. Just go read Jesus Interrupted yourself LNC if you actually care about anything anyone else says and if you still believe the gospels are historically accurate after that, then I see no point in continuing to discuss this with you because it's obvious you have no interest in anything that I or anyone else says. I wonder if LNC gets his debating techniques from William Lane Craig since he's making pretty much all the same arguments Craig made in this video: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/eschatol...bate/3971050071

[Ouroboros]

I wonder if LNC gets his debating techniques from William Lane Craig since he's making pretty much all the same arguments Craig made in this video: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/eschatol...bate/3971050071

There's no random coincident that LNC argues like W.L. Craig. LNC comes from Craig's forum.

[RationalOkie]

I wonder if LNC gets his debating techniques from William Lane Craig since he's making pretty much all the same arguments Craig made in this video: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/eschatol...bate/3971050071

There's no random coincident that LNC argues like W.L. Craig. LNC comes from Craig's forum.

 

Dead on Han.