bdp Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I don't assume that ex-christians have read or studied the NT much. First error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Not so. Simon Greenleaf who was a lawyer examined the NT with the rules of evidence used in a court of law and found the accounts of the resurrection to be true. Other lawyers have done the samething and arrived at the same conclusion. If you claim the NT is hearsay how do know that ancient historical accounts of Alexander were not hearsay also? After all he did incredible things with his army that still astound historians. Greenleaf represented the court 150 years ago. The court has a more strict rule about hearsay evidence today compared to his time. Hearsay is not accepted today. And on a second note, historians do not believe everything that has been said about Alexander. They read it and scrutinize it using other sources, and if we do that with the Bible, there are strong doubts about zombies on the street, earthquakes, and a healer preaching to thousands of people. There are contemporary historians from that time who does not mention Jesus, miracles, or Christians. So if it was so big and spectacular, then why wouldn't the historians write about it? The first one mentioning it came a long time after. Why didn't Philo write about Jesus and his theology? It was in his interest and domain of study. And he spent time in Jerusalem around the same era as Jesus. So why didn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I don't assume that ex-christians have read or studied the NT much. Many in the church don't even today. Thus begging the question... Care to guess what it is? Ok, I'll help you out. Those who pay the most attention often end up here not in a pew. If that were the case this site would be full of minsters and scholars who study the Scriptures deeply. How much have you studied the Scriptures before you rejected Christianity? Was it the Bible you had problems with or what someone said? For example i watched the Zeitgeist movie and the first time i watched it i was impressed. It sounded so factual and true. Then i investigated many of its claims and found it to be otherwise what was claimed. I don't think people arrive at disbelief in the Bible by reading it but by what others who are against it say. The Jesus seminar is a case in point. The way they determine if the NT is true and factual is a farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddbird1963 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A claim that witnesses saw an extraordinary event is hearsay and thus less than ordinary evidence. It's as if we are debating a child. Lets apply this method to other areas of knowledge. The big bang is the best theory of the origin of the universe. Who saw it happen? Who was there to witness it? Or take the origin of life. Who was there to observe it? Both of these are extraordinary claims and yet we have no eyewitnesses. This must mean they did not happen. Amazed (or LNC?) You Evangelcal minimal facts apologists rely on the NT as eyewitness testimony for your so-called evidence. Therefore Vigile's statment of the "Extraordinary claims . . ." principle is valid. The Big Bang does not rely on eyewitness testimony. It uses physical evidence that is available to us in the present. Vigile is on the mark. The reasoning you use is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Not so. Simon Greenleaf who was a lawyer examined the NT with the rules of evidence used in a court of law and found the accounts of the resurrection to be true. Other lawyers have done the samething and arrived at the same conclusion. If you claim the NT is hearsay how do know that ancient historical accounts of Alexander were not hearsay also? After all he did incredible things with his army that still astound historians. Greenleaf represented the court 150 years ago. The court has a more strict rule about hearsay evidence today compared to his time. Hearsay is not accepted today. Its my understanding that he wrote the book on rules and evidences that is still used today. It is not hearsay to have over 500 people to an event which is what we have for the resurrection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Its my understanding that he wrote the book on rules and evidences that is still used today. It is not hearsay to have over 500 people to an event which is what we have for the resurrection. Who are the 500 people, where are the sworn affidavits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A claim that witnesses saw an extraordinary event is hearsay and thus less than ordinary evidence. It's as if we are debating a child. Lets apply this method to other areas of knowledge. The big bang is the best theory of the origin of the universe. Who saw it happen? Who was there to witness it? Or take the origin of life. Who was there to observe it? Both of these are extraordinary claims and yet we have no eyewitnesses. This must mean they did not happen. Amazed (or LNC?) You Evangelcal minimal facts apologists rely on the NT as eyewitness testimony for your so-called evidence. Therefore Vigile's statment of the "Extraordinary claims . . ." principle is valid. The Big Bang does not rely on eyewitness testimony. It uses physical evidence that is available to us in the present. Vigile is on the mark. The reasoning you use is absurd. I'm just demonstrating how weak the extraordinary method is. In fact there is better evidence for the existence of Christ than there is for any other figure in the ancient world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefriendlyghost Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Um, is there a string on your back, and if I pull it, you parrot out these regurgitated christian responses that really don't answer anything? If your loved ones die unsaved, and you KNOW they have not accepted christ, then you already know damn well where they are going. Goodness and mercy of god, my ass. Why am I bothering? I'm talking to a freakin' robot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 If that were the case this site would be full of minsters and scholars who study the Scriptures deeply. How much have you studied the Scriptures before you rejected Christianity? ...last words... fuck you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Its my understanding that he wrote the book on rules and evidences that is still used today. It is not hearsay to have over 500 people to an event which is what we have for the resurrection. Who are the 500 people, where are the sworn affidavits? We don't know specifically. We do know the names of the apostles who saw the risen Christ. That would be enough in a court of law to convict someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Um, is there a string on your back, and if I pull it, you parrot out these regurgitated christian responses that really don't answer anything? If your loved ones die unsaved, and you KNOW they have not accepted christ, then you already know damn well where they are going. Goodness and mercy of god, my ass. Why am I bothering? I'm talking to a freakin' robot. I would agree with you. Those who reject Christ will be condemned. This is what the Scripture says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Lets apply this method to other areas of knowledge. The big bang is the best theory of the origin of the universe. Who saw it happen? Who was there to witness it? Or take the origin of life. Who was there to observe it? Both of these are extraordinary claims and yet we have no eyewitnesses. This must mean they did not happen. Big Bang theory is based on very complex mathematical models in turn based on actual observations and facts about the Universe. It has far more support than the Biblical record of Jesus. The Big Bang model came out as an explanation to the observations, not the other way around. It wasn't like, "hey, I have a great idea. Lets imagine the universe exploded into existence, so lets now try to prove it." It was more like, "Hey, all these things we see looks like they point to a common origin, perhaps there was a Big Bang, lets see if the math and other observations support it." And it does (almost). There are some scientists who have begun to ponder if the Big Bang model might be wrong. There are some alternative models which kind'a fit into the observations too, but the math isn't there yet to support it fully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight-mindwanderings Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I'm just demonstrating how weak the extraordinary method is. In fact there is better evidence for the existence of Christ than there is for any other figure in the ancient world. I'm sorry but you must be joking. We have BODIES of people from the ancient world, much more ancient than Jesus. We know more about the lives and deaths of the Egyptian Pharohs because we have actual physical remains of who they were and what they owned. We have nothing more about Jesus than we do about Santa Clause. There are not 500 eyewitness accounts there is an account written decades after the fact saying that there were 500 witnesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I don't assume that ex-christians have read or studied the NT much. Many in the church don't even today. Thus begging the question... Care to guess what it is? Ok, I'll help you out. Those who pay the most attention often end up here not in a pew. If that were the case this site would be full of minsters and scholars who study the Scriptures deeply. How much have you studied the Scriptures before you rejected Christianity? Was it the Bible you had problems with or what someone said? For example i watched the Zeitgeist movie and the first time i watched it i was impressed. It sounded so factual and true. Then i investigated many of its claims and found it to be otherwise what was claimed. I don't think people arrive at disbelief in the Bible by reading it but by what others who are against it say. The Jesus seminar is a case in point. The way they determine if the NT is true and factual is a farce. I'm Amazed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 On what basis do you know there is no hell and no one goes there? On what basis do you know there is no sub-space quantum volcano and no one goes there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddbird1963 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A claim that witnesses saw an extraordinary event is hearsay and thus less than ordinary evidence. It's as if we are debating a child. Lets apply this method to other areas of knowledge. The big bang is the best theory of the origin of the universe. Who saw it happen? Who was there to witness it? Or take the origin of life. Who was there to observe it? Both of these are extraordinary claims and yet we have no eyewitnesses. This must mean they did not happen. Amazed (or LNC?) You Evangelcal minimal facts apologists rely on the NT as eyewitness testimony for your so-called evidence. Therefore Vigile's statment of the "Extraordinary claims . . ." principle is valid. The Big Bang does not rely on eyewitness testimony. It uses physical evidence that is available to us in the present. Vigile is on the mark. The reasoning you use is absurd. I'm just demonstrating how weak the extraordinary method is. In fact there is better evidence for the existence of Christ than there is for any other figure in the ancient world. No. You did not demonstrate weakness. Your refutation of the Big Bang using the "Extraordinary claims. . ." does not demonstrate weakness in the principle. It shows a weakness in your general understanding of things. The fact remains, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence where it applies to eyewitness testimony. Right now, the evidence you can supply does not meet such a standard. It is not good enough for regular history, much less a claim of resurrection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Its hard to have a discussion with you because you do not accept our answers. You are making absolutely no effort to see things from our perspective. We have seen things from your perspective, both on death and towards atheists but you are refusing to change your preconcieved notions on the way atheists are or think. You asked me why thinking about death and the afterlife led to my deconversion. Its the problem of hell. I was taught, with biblical support, that the majority of people, including the majority of Christians, were going to hell. Even if I could have felt secure as one of the saved, I could never be happy about it because anyone being eternally tortured made me incredibly depressed. I loved other cultures and religions and I couldn't understand how a loving god could condemn them for being different. Thus there could be no heaven for me, because there could be no peace or happiness with the knowledge of eternal suffering for others. The ideas of heaven and hell are contradictory to logic. The worst person in the world I would forgive before condemning them to hell, does that mean I have more empathy and compassion than god? With this philosophy there was no where to go. To save myself seemed selfish, to willfully go to hell seemed insane, but in the end it doesn't matter because god can do whatever he wants and I have no way of knowing what that is. How can you be sure that the hijackers of 9/11 are not in heaven? They acted with more faith and conviction in their religion that serves the same god as you than any Christian has for centuries. I think they are abominable, and I think the religions of Abraham are abominable because this is where they lead when followed completely. You might think those involved with the Inquisition were not Real Christians, but they had biblical support for what they did. To save a few souls from eternal hell meant it was worth it to torture and kill so many people. Their lives meant nothing because only saving a soul for the afterlife mattered. It makes a twisted amount of sense if you are taking the bible literally. Many religions have different ideas about the afterlife that make more sense and offer more hope. The eastern idea of re-incarnation and enlightenment for example. I don't necessarily believe in it or live my life by it, but if there is an afterlife, I imagine it resembles their idea more closely than yours. I agree that the doctrine of hell is difficult. I actually hope i'm wrong about my understanding what Jesus said about hell but i have yet to see someone explain it away. Since Jesus was God in the flesh and he made specific references to judgement, heaven and hell i have no choice but to deal with it. Ignoring it or trying to explain it away does not help. This is not the way to the truth. There is a way out of this delemia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I don't think people arrive at disbelief in the Bible by reading it "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - Isaac Asimov Quoted for truth. That's how I got here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A claim that witnesses saw an extraordinary event is hearsay and thus less than ordinary evidence. It's as if we are debating a child. Lets apply this method to other areas of knowledge. The big bang is the best theory of the origin of the universe. Who saw it happen? Who was there to witness it? Or take the origin of life. Who was there to observe it? Both of these are extraordinary claims and yet we have no eyewitnesses. This must mean they did not happen. Over 500 people saw the risen Christ and at least 2 of them were unbelievers. This easily satisfies the extraordinary requirement. Amazed (or LNC?) You Evangelcal minimal facts apologists rely on the NT as eyewitness testimony for your so-called evidence. Therefore Vigile's statment of the "Extraordinary claims . . ." principle is valid. The Big Bang does not rely on eyewitness testimony. It uses physical evidence that is available to us in the present. Vigile is on the mark. The reasoning you use is absurd. I'm just demonstrating how weak the extraordinary method is. In fact there is better evidence for the existence of Christ than there is for any other figure in the ancient world. No. You did not demonstrate weakness. Your refutation of the Big Bang using the "Extraordinary claims. . ." does not demonstrate weakness in the principle. It shows a weakness in your general understanding of things. The fact remains, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence where it applies to eyewitness testimony. Right now, the evidence you can supply does not meet such a standard. It is not good enough for regular history, much less a claim of resurrection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 There is a way out of this delemia. ...so I lied, but I can't resist... No, there's a way out of your DEMENTIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabula Rasa Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Amazed, while I'm uncertain about happens after we die, I know for certain that it's not the christian version of things. And I'm glad of it, because you'd get serious injustice as shown in this video.(Possibly NSFW) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted November 19, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted November 19, 2009 I'm Amazed. At this point I think a good number of us are amazed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I don't think people arrive at disbelief in the Bible by reading it "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - Isaac Asimov Quoted for truth. That's how I got here. How so? Can you give some examples how reading the Bible alone led you to this conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Actually the differences in the gospel accounts are an advantage. Not when the first written Gospel has less detail and the later ones have more details. It's evidence of embellishment. Take the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Do all the accounts that were recorded the identical? No, they don't. But it's not like one story says, "The towers burned, but they didn't come down," and the next says, "The towers burned, but only two came down," and the last one says, "The towers burned and the whole New York was eradicated." That the first Gospels omitted important parts of the story only shows that they didn't know about those important parts. There can be differences in details, but there shouldn't be differences in the broad strokes of the story. That they saw Jesus after the resurrection and touched his body, is a pretty important part. But the first author didn't even know about this. Does it mean that they are not mean they are not true accounts? Of course not. Actually, they're not 100% true. Even the stories from 9/11. People remember things different, and some memories are false or slightly wrong. This is tested and researched, and if you read Psychology you will learn this. The personal accounts of events tend to shift and get fabricated over time, and we all implant false memories. This is not a speculation, but observed phenomenon. The fact that the first Gospels were written some 40 years after the events only make them less reliable, not more. An accurate account would have been if Jesus had told his disciples to write down everything and every detail while they were walking with him. But he didn't. Why? Didn't he know it would be important? Each author of the gospels share in many core events and have some differences. This does not mean these are embellished accounts. The gospels were written to persuade people to repent of their sins and put their faith in Christ for eternal. This was not unusual in ancient works. Something else that was not unusual in ancient works was embellishments. It was fairly common to add supernatural support to regular events to prove to the reader how important the story was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 *drops in, reads one posting of that morontheist, and runs off lest he will run amok and hurt some innocent person* 'nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts