Continued Discussion With Lnc

[LNC]

If John saw nothing then it's hearsay.

 

Well, it's all fiction anyway, but I'll humor you. Possibility A: hallucination. Possibility B: they really did actually see 'Jesus' ("swoon" theory if you will). Possibility C: they saw an imposter.

 

And, again, the idea that anyone saw a 'risen Jesus' is hearsay.

 

btw, I don't see how I could have presuppositions about all this when I once believed in it myself.

 

And what is your evidence that John wasn't an eyewitness? Possibility A has been all but debunked in that group hallucination has never been shown to be valid and that would be required to account for the post resurrection appearances. Possibility B has also been debunked as the combination of wounds from flogging, crucifixion and from a lance thrust into his side, combined with the account of water and blood coming out of the spear wound indicates that his paracardial chamber was punctured, which is a fatal wound. On top of that, you would have to explain why the disciples would be impressed by a half-dead Messiah. Possibility C is implausible in that these people had spent three years with Jesus and wouldn't easily be fooled by a near-impostor. Surely an impostor is not going to look or sound much like Jesus, especially to fool his own mother and brothers who became believers after being skeptics during his lifetime. In addition, with the hallucination and impostor scenarios, you would still have to explain the empty tomb.

[LNC]

LNC, I explained to you why Occam's Razor applies to the origin of the Universe. Yet you simply ignored my explanation and continue to repeat that I am incorrect in pointing out the logical fallacy in your argument.

 

What's up with that?

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Occam's razor. . . is the principle that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily"or, popularly applied, "when you have two competing theories that makeexactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

 

Theory # 1 - The Universe exists, and always has in one form or another.

 

Theory # 2 - The Universe requires a creator. The creator exists, and always has in one form or another.

 

Hmm.

 

Unnecessary multiplication of entities - check. Two theories with the same predictions (i.e. "the Universe exists today, and a Big Bang can be extrapolated from available evidence"), one simpler than the other - check.

 

How again is this a misapplication?

 

Davka,

 

You continue to show a lack of understanding of common logical arguments and for that I cannot help you. You can posit the unscientific and philosophically untenable theory that the universe has always existed and say that that is the simplest explanation, and if that is what you choose to do, then I will object no more to your attempt. However, know that this is a "leap of faith" position that you are holding that goes against the best scientific understanding that we have and violates causality principles of philosophy and puts you in the position of explaining how an actualized infinite can exist. In fact, it is on that basis that I could object and say that it multiplies explanations needlessly as you are now left to explain how an actualized infinite regress is a simpler explanation than a single creator. I believe that it is you who are needless multiplying entities beyond necessity. Can you explain how you overcome this problem?

[LNC]

I think you may be interpreting the text by your presupposition that a real encounter with the ghost of Jesus pulls more weight than a vision. If Paul saw Jesus in a vision as being resurrected why would that mean any less to him? He still didn't "know" if there would be a reward, he only believed there would be as all Christians still do today.

 

Why should we go with the vision hypothesis when Jesus appeared bodily to the other Apostles. Remember when he offered Thomas the opportunity to put touch the nail holes in his hands and to put his hand into Jesus's side (John 20:24-29)? It is clear that this was more than just a vision. Paul explains Jesus' appearance to him as more than just a vision as I have shown on other posts. Why do you feel the need to limit it to a vision? How do you know that Paul didn't "know" if there would be a reward, but only believed there would be? On what do you base these claims? You seem to claim insight that goes beyond what is apparent in the text.

[Deva]

LNC is a troll and a Habermas Bot. If you can't see it, then you haven't read enough of his posts. He repeats, parrot-like, all of Habermas's doctrine. Many have challenged him on his basic assumptions and he doesn't even respond with any inquiry. He is stuck - seems almost like an automatic machine that spits out the same answers over and over. And we are expected to not call a spade a spade?

 

Why shouldn't I repeat a valid argument. I have noticed that not many people have attempted to refute it. Calling Habermas a name is not a refutation. If you think his argument is invalid, please show me where and why.

 

BTW, I am not the only one who is repeating arguments. It seems that this thread was a branch off of the discussion on Bart Ehrman's book and many here have been using his arguments on the thread.

 

 

I wasn't calling Habermas a name, I was calling you a name - a Habermas bot.

Gee that was a long time ago, too. I still think its true.

 

That is what you are-- merely repeating the theories of Habermas, without any thought of your own, in the fashion of a robot. If they are not the theories of Habermas, then I stand corrected.

 

Your absolute insistence on the text of the Bible as eyewitness accounts and "evidence" cannot be proven. The events are incredible and require more proof than an ancient text with purported stories.

[Neon Genesis]

If group hallunication doesn't happen, does that mean the Miracle Of The Sun was real after all and Catholicism is the one true way and so LNC should go back to being a Catholic?

[Ouroboros]

I wasn't calling Habermas a name, I was calling you a name - a Habermas bot.

Gee that was a long time ago, too. I still think its true.

Isn't it fascinating? Haberma's minimalist approach is: 75% of scholars believe... therefore..., and that makes LNC a total 100% believer. While 99% of scientists support evolution, which still keep LNC a bit doubtful about its full truth.

 

That is what you are-- merely repeating the theories of Habermas, without any thought of your own, in the fashion of a robot. If they are not the theories of Habermas, then I stand corrected.

 

Your absolute insistence on the text of the Bible as eyewitness accounts and "evidence" cannot be proven. The events are incredible and require more proof than an ancient text with purported stories.

75% of scholars believe it, so it must be true.

 

But Big Bang can't be true, since only 99% scientists believe it.

 

Card stacking the argument.

[NotBlinded]

I think you may be interpreting the text by your presupposition that a real encounter with the ghost of Jesus pulls more weight than a vision. If Paul saw Jesus in a vision as being resurrected why would that mean any less to him? He still didn't "know" if there would be a reward, he only believed there would be as all Christians still do today.

 

Why should we go with the vision hypothesis when Jesus appeared bodily to the other Apostles. Remember when he offered Thomas the opportunity to put touch the nail holes in his hands and to put his hand into Jesus's side (John 20:24-29)? It is clear that this was more than just a vision. Paul explains Jesus' appearance to him as more than just a vision as I have shown on other posts. Why do you feel the need to limit it to a vision? How do you know that Paul didn't "know" if there would be a reward, but only believed there would be? On what do you base these claims? You seem to claim insight that goes beyond what is apparent in the text.

Hell, I've forgotten what context that was said in. I'll let it go.

[Ouroboros]

Hell, I've forgotten what context that was said in. I'll let it go.

If he saw Jesus for real, why did he still doubt it was Jesus and had to touch him? Perhaps Jesus didn't look like Jesus anymore? He looked more like Jebus, his brother.

[NotBlinded]

Hell, I've forgotten what context that was said in. I'll let it go.

If he saw Jesus for real, why did he still doubt it was Jesus and had to touch him? Perhaps Jesus didn't look like Jesus anymore? He looked more like Jebus, his brother.

Nooooo...he looked more like zombius; his other brother from another mother.

[Ouroboros]

Nooooo...he looked more like zombius; his other brother from another mother.

Or maybe "he" was a sister from another mister? No wonder they were so confused. This story could be told in the fashion of Little Red Ridinghood.

 

Thomas - What big ears you got Jesus.

 

Jesus - It's so I can hear you better.

 

Thomas - And your eyes are so big.

 

Jesus - That's so I can see you better.

 

Thomas - And you got holes in your hands.

 

Jesus - That's to remind you how holey I am.

 

Thomas - And what big boobs you got!

 

Jesus - Hrrm... lets not go there... Trust me, I'm Jesus, even if I still got them makeup on.

[NotBlinded]

Nooooo...he looked more like zombius; his other brother from another mother.

Or maybe "he" was a sister from another mister? No wonder they were so confused. This story could be told in the fashion of Little Red Ridinghood.

 

Thomas - What big ears you got Jesus.

 

Jesus - It's so I can hear you better.

 

Thomas - And your eyes are so big.

 

Jesus - That's so I can see you better.

 

Thomas - And you got holes in your hands.

 

Jesus - That's to remind you how holey I am.

 

Thomas - And what big boobs you got!

 

Jesus - Hrrm... lets not go there... Trust me, I'm Jesus, even if I still got them makeup on.

[dagnarus]

I think you may be interpreting the text by your presupposition that a real encounter with the ghost of Jesus pulls more weight than a vision. If Paul saw Jesus in a vision as being resurrected why would that mean any less to him? He still didn't "know" if there would be a reward, he only believed there would be as all Christians still do today.

 

Why should we go with the vision hypothesis when Jesus appeared bodily to the other Apostles. Remember when he offered Thomas the opportunity to put touch the nail holes in his hands and to put his hand into Jesus's side (John 20:24-29)? It is clear that this was more than just a vision. Paul explains Jesus' appearance to him as more than just a vision as I have shown on other posts. Why do you feel the need to limit it to a vision? How do you know that Paul didn't "know" if there would be a reward, but only believed there would be? On what do you base these claims? You seem to claim insight that goes beyond what is apparent in the text.

 

If I remember correctly that far back wasn't this whole argument centered around, the gospels which spoke about real flesh and blood sightings of Jesus were written 40,50,60+ years after the fact, I.E outside of living memory. The earliest writings written by Paul do not speak of any physichal sightings, at best it talks about seeing him in a vision.

 

Given that context isn't it circular to use John. I mean originally Paul was being used to validate him.

[dagnarus]

If John saw nothing then it's hearsay.

 

Well, it's all fiction anyway, but I'll humor you. Possibility A: hallucination. Possibility B: they really did actually see 'Jesus' ("swoon" theory if you will). Possibility C: they saw an imposter.

 

And, again, the idea that anyone saw a 'risen Jesus' is hearsay.

 

btw, I don't see how I could have presuppositions about all this when I once believed in it myself.

 

And what is your evidence that John wasn't an eyewitness? Possibility A has been all but debunked in that group hallucination has never been shown to be valid and that would be required to account for the post resurrection appearances. Possibility B has also been debunked as the combination of wounds from flogging, crucifixion and from a lance thrust into his side, combined with the account of water and blood coming out of the spear wound indicates that his paracardial chamber was punctured, which is a fatal wound. On top of that, you would have to explain why the disciples would be impressed by a half-dead Messiah. Possibility C is implausible in that these people had spent three years with Jesus and wouldn't easily be fooled by a near-impostor. Surely an impostor is not going to look or sound much like Jesus, especially to fool his own mother and brothers who became believers after being skeptics during his lifetime. In addition, with the hallucination and impostor scenarios, you would still have to explain the empty tomb.

 

What about possibility D, "the writer of John is just recounting what he has heard from previous sources, embellishing as God inspires. He himself cannot be sure of the validity of his statements."

[dagnarus]

LNC said:

 

I do believe, for example, that it matters whether Jesus lived or not. If he lived, was God as he claimed, died on the cross to pay for sins, and rose again to display victory over sin and death, then I can be redeemed from my sin (and so can you). If Jesus was purely a mythical figure, and therefore, wasn't God, didn't die on the cross, didn't rise again, then I am lost in my sin (and so are you). It does matter whether this is a real or mythical account.

 

 

 

...or, option C, 'sin' is a mythical concept. The accounts of 'Jesus' only matter if 'sin' is real. I don't lose any sleep over any of it.

 

Do you believe that sin is a mythical concept? If so, do you live that way in relation to others? In other word, when someone offends you, do you tell yourself that sin is merely a mythical concept and you should get over feeling offended? Or, is it just sin against God that you consider to be mythical?

 

It's the only one the bible really seems concerned with, all the others you seem to be able to get away with.

[oddbird1963]

 

 

Do you believe that sin is a mythical concept? If so, do you live that way in relation to others? In other word, when someone offends you, do you tell yourself that sin is merely a mythical concept and you should get over feeling offended? Or, is it just sin against God that you consider to be mythical?

 

"Sin" is a theological concept. Sin is what your theology makes it out to be. It is defined by your religion. As such, Christians, Muslims and possibly Jews are more hung up on the concept of sin than everyone else.

 

Bdp, when he labels it "mythical" brings out (in my interpretation anyway) the reified and concretized nature of the concept in Christian theology. ". . . sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." (Gen. 4:7b).

 

Or, in Romans 7: "¹¹For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death."

 

Those are just a couple of examples.

 

When someone offends me, as a nontheist, I don't say or think anything about sin. That's "ya'll's thang!" I think, "How inappropriate!" or "Bite me!" when someone does me wrong. If it is someone I respect or care for, I will try to come to some understanding with them. In fact, nobody sins against me. They treat me ethically or unethically. They hurt me emotionally or they build me up. Sin is such an antiquated and primitive concept that has no usefulness in dealing with the big issues that face individuals and communities.

 

It is a waste of time to think in terms of sin and having to appease a vengeful, demanding god. It's time for people to get to know one another and understand one another and learn to empathize with people of cultures that seem totally alien. No mythical bible god or whispy holy spirit of theologies gone by will do that for us.

 

Our species may destroy itself, indeed. But the only way we will prevent that is to cast off silly notions of sin and learn to understand the woes of the world in useful ways.

[bdp]

 

 

Do you believe that sin is a mythical concept? If so, do you live that way in relation to others? In other word, when someone offends you, do you tell yourself that sin is merely a mythical concept and you should get over feeling offended? Or, is it just sin against God that you consider to be mythical?

 

"Sin" is a theological concept. Sin is what your theology makes it out to be. It is defined by your religion. As such, Christians, Muslims and possibly Jews are more hung up on the concept of sin than everyone else.

 

Bdp, when he labels it "mythical" brings out (in my interpretation anyway) the reified and concretized nature of the concept in Christian theology. ". . . sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." (Gen. 4:7b).

 

Or, in Romans 7: "¹¹For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death."

 

Those are just a couple of examples.

 

When someone offends me, as a nontheist, I don't say or think anything about sin. That's "ya'll's thang!" I think, "How inappropriate!" or "Bite me!" when someone does me wrong. If it is someone I respect or care for, I will try to come to some understanding with them. In fact, nobody sins against me. They treat me ethically or unethically. They hurt me emotionally or they build me up. Sin is such an antiquated and primitive concept that has no usefulness in dealing with the big issues that face individuals and communities.

 

It is a waste of time to think in terms of sin and having to appease a vengeful, demanding god. It's time for people to get to know one another and understand one another and learn to empathize with people of cultures that seem totally alien. No mythical bible god or whispy holy spirit of theologies gone by will do that for us.

 

Our species may destroy itself, indeed. But the only way we will prevent that is to cast off silly notions of sin and learn to understand the woes of the world in useful ways.

 

What oddbird said.

[LNC]

I get the idea that Galatians doesn’t agree with Acts, the stories are not consistent.

That comes from reading the text.

 

I don’t know what Paul did or didn’t forget, the stories are not consistent, that’s the point.

 

Do you have reason to doubt the accuracy and reliability of Luke when he gives three accounts of Paul’s activity after he left Damascus and none of them mention a hiatus to Arabia, generating a time gap of three years?

Give your justification for inserting a three year gap between the verses Luke wrote in each of the three scenarios he describes.

 

Do you have evidence, other than wishful thinking, to assume that Luke, a world class historian who was writing his accounts to confirm with certainty stories that his reader had been taught, would leave out information concerning accurate chronological events?

 

Again, there is no time frame spelled out in Acts as to when Paul went to Jerusalem. It only reads next in the account; however, it doesn't say when he returned to Jerusalem, but just that at some point he did and there were threats to kill him. I think that you are reading this as a consecutive unbroken account in time;

 

 

Your facts fit the story in Galatians, not the stories in Acts.

It’s inconsistent with Acts 9:27-28, which indicates he saw more than Peter and James.

 

OK, where does it say that this happened immediately after he left Damascus? You have to realize that when we piece together history, we have to take all the pieces into consideration. You cannot take this one passage that gives no time indication and assume that it is referring to an immediate move from Damascus to Jerusalem, especially when the subject writes that this was not the case. In this case, the subject's account clarifies the other account, especially when the subject's account was written first and would have likely been known to the other author. In this case, we know that Galatians is the earlier writing and Acts the later writing.

 

You seem to be engaging in expedient rationalizing again, rather than recognizing the evidence for inconsistency.

 

You have not made a case for inconsistency, you have merely assumed that your reading is accurate and asserted as much. That is not good historical work on your part.

[centauri]

I get the idea that Galatians doesn’t agree with Acts, the stories are not consistent.

That comes from reading the text.

 

I don’t know what Paul did or didn’t forget, the stories are not consistent, that’s the point.

 

Do you have reason to doubt the accuracy and reliability of Luke when he gives three accounts of Paul’s activity after he left Damascus and none of them mention a hiatus to Arabia, generating a time gap of three years?

Give your justification for inserting a three year gap between the verses Luke wrote in each of the three scenarios he describes.

 

Do you have evidence, other than wishful thinking, to assume that Luke, a world class historian who was writing his accounts to confirm with certainty stories that his reader had been taught, would leave out information concerning accurate chronological events?

 

Again, there is no time frame spelled out in Acts as to when Paul went to Jerusalem. It only reads next in the account; however, it doesn't say when he returned to Jerusalem, but just that at some point he did and there were threats to kill him. I think that you are reading this as a consecutive unbroken account in time;

There isn’t any reason not to read it as a series of consecutive events.

I got the idea that Paul went to Jerusalem and met with the apostles right after the Damascus events by reading the text.

But it seems you would like me to believe that there are three years of an Arabian hiatus somewhere in between verse 25 and 26.

Perhaps Luke should have put a note into Acts saying "see Galatians for more information".

Acts 9:22-28

But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.

And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him:

But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him.

Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket.

And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.

But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.

 

Acts 22:16-17 reads about the same as Acts 9, there is no reason to assume a time gap other than to reconcile the problem.

Acts 26 also gives no indication of an extended time gap in Paul’s itinerary.

That’s three accounts and none of them give any indication of an extended time gap.

Luke is alleged to be an inspired writer under the guidance of a deity that wants all men to be saved and is not the author of confusion.

All Luke had to do was add two words, such as…”And years later, when Saul was come to Jerusalem etc.”

It would have been very easy to reconcile the problem at the time and Luke had three opportunities to do so and never once did.

 

 

centauri:

Your facts fit the story in Galatians, not the stories in Acts.

It’s inconsistent with Acts 9:27-28, which indicates he saw more than Peter and James.

 

OK, where does it say that this happened immediately after he left Damascus? You have to realize that when we piece together history, we have to take all the pieces into consideration. You cannot take this one passage that gives no time indication and assume that it is referring to an immediate move from Damascus to Jerusalem, especially when the subject writes that this was not the case. In this case, the subject's account clarifies the other account, especially when the subject's account was written first and would have likely been known to the other author. In this case, we know that Galatians is the earlier writing and Acts the later writing.

You have to realize that Luke was writing his history to confirm with certainty the events surrounding Jesus and key elements of subsequent Christian history.

I see no instruction in Acts for Luke’s reader to refer to Galatians for further enlightening details.

The clarification is completely absent from Acts and you cannot assume Luke was aware of it.

According to Luke, the Christians in Jerusalem did not believe that when Paul arrived there after his conversion that he was one of them.

I find it hard to believe that disciples that had been filled with the Holy Spirit did not know after 3 years time that Paul had been converted and was preaching for Jesus to Jews in Damascus immediately after his conversion.

If there was no 3 year gap then it would be understandable, and there isn’t any according to Luke.

Paul’s story of a 3 year absence doesn’t lend credibility to the account in Acts 9 in particular.

Galatians 1 and Acts 9 simply do not agree in regard to what happened to Paul after his conversion and where he went.

Furthermore, Galatians 1 and Acts 9 are not harmonious with regard to which Apostles Paul saw when he arrived in Jerusalem.

 

centauri:

You seem to be engaging in expedient rationalizing again, rather than recognizing the evidence for inconsistency.

 

You have not made a case for inconsistency, you have merely assumed that your reading is accurate and asserted as much. That is not good historical work on your part.

Right back at you.

You have not made a case for scriptural consistency or valid history, you have merely assumed that your insertion of undocumented time gaps between consecutive lines of multiple passages is warranted.

You want to combine and modify the stories, which requires rewriting the separate passages to suit your preferences.