Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

How Do You Respond To This?


Guest Valk0010

Recommended Posts

Guest Valk0010

For some reason, I seem to be having trouble getting some stuff out of my head, and its the reason, I have been posting shit, like my thread about miracle claims of history. But this thread might be good for more then just mental masturbation, even the lurkers might find this a good thread. I dunno

 

The best explanation when all the facts are considered for the rise of the resurrection belief in the apostles is that jesus actually rose from the dead. And there is no competing purely naturalistic explanations.

 

Que, the various WLC, Mcdowell, etc, bullshit about how there is historical proof for the resurrection of jesus.

 

 

My response.

 

Its a burden of proof shift, I can and do say, I don't know and you based of your arguments your not convincing. As well its a form of special pleading, by the same reasoning you use to prove you case, you make a good case for aliens as well or catholic miracles like, The virgin of fatima. So your arguments lead to an absurd conclusion and are fallacious (Reductio ad absurdum). Also you have to prove that your god exists before even saying anything about the resurrection, and that is something that even at a simple level is impossible. So at best, any understanding of why they came to believe what they believe should be treated with scepticism and in the case of the miraculous left to the role of myth. Science (and history is a soft science) can say stuff about the natural world, and as you can see, there is a good reason for that. The supernatural as a idea is problematic for inquiry, hence the methods your trying to use, being methodologically natural. The miracles of the bible are unprovable, nor if attacked by this route, disprovable. So you more or less have to prove your case, beforehand, to use history to prove you case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



Nothing about the entire story makes any sense unless you presuppose it to be all true already.

 

I wouldn't even bother with a long reply... just state that and if the other side doesn't at least try to come up with something of value, just grant him/her a bitchslap and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The use of the gospels as history books bothers me. They are religious texts. Of course they claim Jesus rose from the dead. That's the central tenet of the religion they are pushing. If the argument from history is to be made, it must rely on extra-biblical evidence. And (so far as I am aware) the case that Jesus rose based on extra-biblical evidence is vanishingly thin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it all boils down to is this: Apologists' standard for "evidence" is substantially lower than our standard. If they want to convince us, they have to come up with something that meets or surpasses our standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the gospels they are written long after the fact (if there was a fact to begin with)

 

We use Occam's Razor here.

 

A simple action that would have put all matters to bed would have been an appearance to the accusers and Sanhedrin council and religious leaders of the day. That never happened.

 

Likewise with the Ark of the covenant, where is it? That would be ample proof of a god interaction with the people. Ergo it never existed in the first place.

 

All of the claims in the bible lack artefacts so they invented the shroud and other shit which has been proven to be false.

 

Even with these artefacts, I would still show this god the middle finger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most likely explanation is that the historical figure Jesus was created from likely never was sentenced to death (shows up nowhere in Roman records), nor was resurrected. The story was made up for the Bible, to enhance the prestige of their religion.

 

If they really think the Bible saying so is proof, then they must believe that Voldemort existed too. Just because a book says something existed, with tons of detail, does not make it true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you walk into the forest looking for Big Foot you've already made the concession to the possibility that such a thing as a "Big Foot" may well be there. When it's just a bear, a guy in a suit, plain old nothing, or explained as something like a monkey, you've done your part. How many times must you personally walk into the forest? Are you the one that is expected to find their "Big Foot" for them? Or should they ultimately bring it to you...and the one they promised? Meaning not show you blurry images of some amazing walking, furred, giant then tell you this muskrat road-kill they found are the very same and you need to get back out there with them.

 

I've done my part. I've been in the woods. I've not seen so much as any god-droppings. No soul-turds. Nothing. I'm out. If they find anything. Anything at all. I'm here. Out of the woods.

 

mwc

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I haven't seen any good evidence that early followers of Jesus believed that he rose from the dead. It doesn't appear that any of his followers wrote any of the New Testament. I've seen evidence that James continued to lead a sect of Judaism which Jesus founded. Mark, which appears to be the earliest gospel, in the earliest manuscripts, did not mention a resurrection, only an empty tomb. Only in later writings was a resurrection and Paul's grace message introduced. Numerous doctrines competed for centuries, including several gnostic movements which were persecuted by Roman Christians to extinction. Only Paul's Roman-friendly doctrines survived. I think Paul may have made the whole thing up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Enlightened1

We have mountains of evidence for an empty tomb. The simplest and best explanation for the empty tomb and spread of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus. Believers have been willing to face persecution for centuries because of the testimony of those who witnessed the resurrected Jesus and the lives that were changed (including Paul's) after experiencing Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

 

As far as NT authorship goes, we have writings from Mark, John, and Peter, all of whom were disciples of Jesus. Their messages were the same as Paul's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have mountains of evidence for an empty tomb. The simplest and best explanation for the empty tomb and spread of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus. Believers have been willing to face persecution for centuries because of the testimony of those who witnessed the resurrected Jesus and the lives that were changed (including Paul's) after experiencing Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

 

As far as NT authorship goes, we have writings from Mark, John, and Peter, all of whom were disciples of Jesus. Their messages were the same as Paul's.

 

WendyDoh.gif

 

That is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have mountains of evidence for an empty tomb. The simplest and best explanation for the empty tomb and spread of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus. Believers have been willing to face persecution for centuries because of the testimony of those who witnessed the resurrected Jesus and the lives that were changed (including Paul's) after experiencing Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

 

As far as NT authorship goes, we have writings from Mark, John, and Peter, all of whom were disciples of Jesus. Their messages were the same as Paul's.

Okay I will bite into this troll. So umm, there are MULTIPLE tombs all over the world that claim Jesus was buried there. NO ONE can agree, even in the religious community, which tomb is accurate. Secondly, if you actually read your bible, IF jesus were actually a real person and crucified, you would see that guards weren't posted at his tomb for at least 24 hours AFTER burial.....leaving plenty of time for his body to be taken without notice, and start the claims of resurrection...

 

Do you even READ your book? I mean, it's all there in black and white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the gospels they are written long after the fact (if there was a fact to begin with)

 

We use Occam's Razor here.

 

A simple action that would have put all matters to bed would have been an appearance to the accusers and Sanhedrin council and religious leaders of the day. That never happened.

 

Likewise with the Ark of the covenant, where is it? That would be ample proof of a god interaction with the people. Ergo it never existed in the first place.

 

All of the claims in the bible lack artefacts so they invented the shroud and other shit which has been proven to be false.

 

Even with these artefacts, I would still show this god the middle finger.

 

just a quick note on the Ark. It's even older then Jesus. And it was a physical object. So most likely it rotted away, was stolen and melted down, or otherwise destroyed in an inglorious fashion. In all these cases, the scribes and rabbis of the time would be unlikely to want to admit that this happened...so it became "lost". So they plead incompetence as oppose to saying it wasn't all powerful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

We have mountains of evidence for an empty tomb. The simplest and best explanation for the empty tomb and spread of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus. Believers have been willing to face persecution for centuries because of the testimony of those who witnessed the resurrected Jesus and the lives that were changed (including Paul's) after experiencing Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

 

As far as NT authorship goes, we have writings from Mark, John, and Peter, all of whom were disciples of Jesus. Their messages were the same as Paul's.

 

May I suggest reading some books other than the Bible and apologetic fluff? Everything in your post is wrong on so many levels - should you ever get an honest, unbiased education on the topics at hand, you will be so embarrassed. I speak from experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

As far as NT authorship goes, we have writings from Mark, John, and Peter, all of whom were disciples of Jesus. Their messages were the same as Paul's.

 

We have evidence from Paul's own words that their messages were not the same. The books labelled with their names were not written by them. Do you think that Mark, John, and Peter were all educated and capable of writing in Greek? Why have no manuscripts from the first century been preserved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why have no manuscripts from the first century been preserved?

 

Because then we wouldn't need faith. Come on man, get with the program!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To paraphrase one of my fav comedians: The sheer amount of braindead idiocy begs for not saying a single word as reply. Just kick the moron's face in and quietly walk away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Enlightened1

Reposting from the other thread I was participating in as Enlightened1: "Doug inspired me to do a little trolling for fun. We don't see enough real people like that. I'm actually an Ex-C. You guys can be vicious! Don't be angry. " woohoo.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a little notice of caution here. Intentionally trolling, spoofing, poe-ing, etc is not encouraged. We've had a couple of troublesome occasions in the past that got ugly. And also, when we ban a fundamentalist, it's possible that we might ban the IP# as well which would block any other double accounts the person has. So, in simple terms... intentionally creating sock-puppet accounts... No!

 

M'kay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the gospels they are written long after the fact (if there was a fact to begin with)

 

We use Occam's Razor here.

 

A simple action that would have put all matters to bed would have been an appearance to the accusers and Sanhedrin council and religious leaders of the day. That never happened.

 

Likewise with the Ark of the covenant, where is it? That would be ample proof of a god interaction with the people. Ergo it never existed in the first place.

 

All of the claims in the bible lack artefacts so they invented the shroud and other shit which has been proven to be false.

 

Even with these artefacts, I would still show this god the middle finger.

 

just a quick note on the Ark. It's even older then Jesus. And it was a physical object. So most likely it rotted away, was stolen and melted down, or otherwise destroyed in an inglorious fashion. In all these cases, the scribes and rabbis of the time would be unlikely to want to admit that this happened...so it became "lost". So they plead incompetence as oppose to saying it wasn't all powerful.

Yeah I doubt it existed. the whole exodus debacle never happened. However revelation claims it is back in heaven so they did cover that base.

 

Whoever carried the AotC were pall bearers for the priest's shit - again assuming there was even a tiny exodus. No one was allowed to enter the holy of holies apart from the hippie I mean high priest and he had a rope attached to his leg with bells and other shit.

 

The exodus story is just that a story. My guess they built the temple in Jerusalem based on myth stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have mountains of evidence for an empty tomb. The simplest and best explanation for the empty tomb and spread of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus. Believers have been willing to face persecution for centuries because of the testimony of those who witnessed the resurrected Jesus and the lives that were changed (including Paul's) after experiencing Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

 

As far as NT authorship goes, we have writings from Mark, John, and Peter, all of whom were disciples of Jesus. Their messages were the same as Paul's.

 

ULTIMATE FAIL OF BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the gospels they are written long after the fact (if there was a fact to begin with)

 

We use Occam's Razor here.

 

A simple action that would have put all matters to bed would have been an appearance to the accusers and Sanhedrin council and religious leaders of the day. That never happened.

 

Likewise with the Ark of the covenant, where is it? That would be ample proof of a god interaction with the people. Ergo it never existed in the first place.

 

All of the claims in the bible lack artefacts so they invented the shroud and other shit which has been proven to be false.

 

Even with these artefacts, I would still show this god the middle finger.

 

just a quick note on the Ark. It's even older then Jesus. And it was a physical object. So most likely it rotted away, was stolen and melted down, or otherwise destroyed in an inglorious fashion. In all these cases, the scribes and rabbis of the time would be unlikely to want to admit that this happened...so it became "lost". So they plead incompetence as oppose to saying it wasn't all powerful.

 

OR, it never existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

We have mountains of evidence for an empty tomb. The simplest and best explanation for the empty tomb and spread of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus. Believers have been willing to face persecution for centuries because of the testimony of those who witnessed the resurrected Jesus and the lives that were changed (including Paul's) after experiencing Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

 

As far as NT authorship goes, we have writings from Mark, John, and Peter, all of whom were disciples of Jesus. Their messages were the same as Paul's.

Evidence for a tomb is nothing but evidence for a tomb. And you got to prove that the christian god actually exists, to even be able to use historical evidence to prove the resurrection, otherwise its at worse for a skeptic, a mystery of history. I would say the same thing, if your case was entirely correct(it isn't) but even if it was its at worst a mystery. And about, there lives being changed. Lie's change people a lot, good example is the manson family.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the gospels they are written long after the fact (if there was a fact to begin with)

 

We use Occam's Razor here.

 

A simple action that would have put all matters to bed would have been an appearance to the accusers and Sanhedrin council and religious leaders of the day. That never happened.

 

Likewise with the Ark of the covenant, where is it? That would be ample proof of a god interaction with the people. Ergo it never existed in the first place.

 

All of the claims in the bible lack artefacts so they invented the shroud and other shit which has been proven to be false.

 

Even with these artefacts, I would still show this god the middle finger.

 

just a quick note on the Ark. It's even older then Jesus. And it was a physical object. So most likely it rotted away, was stolen and melted down, or otherwise destroyed in an inglorious fashion. In all these cases, the scribes and rabbis of the time would be unlikely to want to admit that this happened...so it became "lost". So they plead incompetence as oppose to saying it wasn't all powerful.

 

OR, it never existed.

When I think about this particular ark I tend to think about Egyptian barque's. Like this one:

sanctuary-cc-saulo-alvarado.jpg

Photo creative_commons.gif Saulo Alvarado Mateos.

 

That is the boat (an "ark") that carried a god. Note the figures at either end that aren't, but we could compare to, angels with outstretched wings. The two large poles. These barques don't have covers like the biblical ark but instead if the boat is removed and the whole structure is condensed to the naos (the middle box-like structure where the god was kept) then the similarities are very strong. It take very little imagination for the biblical ark to simply be just another custom barque of history.

 

The story has the ark being stolen but with the god having a permanent home in the larger naos (the holy of holies) it no longer needed the portable ark and it would not need to have to have it returned or replaced. Apparently the need to "mobilize" YHWH fell out of fashion. He stopped going before the armies (like in Joshua). I don't recall any festivals where they paraded him around the city (or cities). These are things an ark (barque) would be for. But you risk "losing" your god if he's in his mobile home and taken away. The bible reports this happening once as I recall (I'm not going to look it up). So once in the temple he's there for good. Easily defensible. And people can come to him (even though only the high priest may actually enter his naos). And since this god is invisible (ie. no images/idols) there's no way for an invader to pack him up and steal him even if they penetrate all the defenses.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason, I seem to be having trouble getting some stuff out of my head, and its the reason, I have been posting shit, like my thread about miracle claims of history. But this thread might be good for more then just mental masturbation, even the lurkers might find this a good thread. I dunno

 

The best explanation when all the facts are considered for the rise of the resurrection belief in the apostles is that jesus actually rose from the dead. And there is no competing purely naturalistic explanations.

 

Que, the various WLC, Mcdowell, etc, bullshit about how there is historical proof for the resurrection of jesus.

 

 

My response.

 

Its a burden of proof shift, I can and do say, I don't know and you based of your arguments your not convincing. As well its a form of special pleading, by the same reasoning you use to prove you case, you make a good case for aliens as well or catholic miracles like, The virgin of fatima. So your arguments lead to an absurd conclusion and are fallacious (Reductio ad absurdum). Also you have to prove that your god exists before even saying anything about the resurrection, and that is something that even at a simple level is impossible. So at best, any understanding of why they came to believe what they believe should be treated with scepticism and in the case of the miraculous left to the role of myth. Science (and history is a soft science) can say stuff about the natural world, and as you can see, there is a good reason for that. The supernatural as a idea is problematic for inquiry, hence the methods your trying to use, being methodologically natural. The miracles of the bible are unprovable, nor if attacked by this route, disprovable. So you more or less have to prove your case, beforehand, to use history to prove you case.

 

That reminds me a little of Bertrand Russell's Teapot.

 

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

 

Bertrand Russell. Illustrated Magazine. (1952)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the gospels they are written long after the fact (if there was a fact to begin with)

 

We use Occam's Razor here.

 

A simple action that would have put all matters to bed would have been an appearance to the accusers and Sanhedrin council and religious leaders of the day. That never happened.

 

Likewise with the Ark of the covenant, where is it? That would be ample proof of a god interaction with the people. Ergo it never existed in the first place.

 

All of the claims in the bible lack artefacts so they invented the shroud and other shit which has been proven to be false.

 

Even with these artefacts, I would still show this god the middle finger.

 

just a quick note on the Ark. It's even older then Jesus. And it was a physical object. So most likely it rotted away, was stolen and melted down, or otherwise destroyed in an inglorious fashion. In all these cases, the scribes and rabbis of the time would be unlikely to want to admit that this happened...so it became "lost". So they plead incompetence as oppose to saying it wasn't all powerful.

 

OR, it never existed.

When I think about this particular ark I tend to think about Egyptian barque's. Like this one:

sanctuary-cc-saulo-alvarado.jpg

Photo creative_commons.gif Saulo Alvarado Mateos.

 

That is the boat (an "ark") that carried a god. Note the figures at either end that aren't, but we could compare to, angels with outstretched wings. The two large poles. These barques don't have covers like the biblical ark but instead if the boat is removed and the whole structure is condensed to the naos (the middle box-like structure where the god was kept) then the similarities are very strong. It take very little imagination for the biblical ark to simply be just another custom barque of history.

 

The story has the ark being stolen but with the god having a permanent home in the larger naos (the holy of holies) it no longer needed the portable ark and it would not need to have to have it returned or replaced. Apparently the need to "mobilize" YHWH fell out of fashion. He stopped going before the armies (like in Joshua). I don't recall any festivals where they paraded him around the city (or cities). These are things an ark (barque) would be for. But you risk "losing" your god if he's in his mobile home and taken away. The bible reports this happening once as I recall (I'm not going to look it up). So once in the temple he's there for good. Easily defensible. And people can come to him (even though only the high priest may actually enter his naos). And since this god is invisible (ie. no images/idols) there's no way for an invader to pack him up and steal him even if they penetrate all the defenses.

 

mwc

 

Fascinating, mwc. An argument from silence: when the Romans conquered Jerusalem in 68 CE, they did not capture the ark of the covenant. The memorial on the Arch of Titus, which depicts the victorious Roman soldiers, shows them carrying as plunder a gigantic menorah, but no ark that I can see.

 

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=arch+of+titus+facts&hl=en&sa=X&qscrl=1&nord=1&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS343US343&biw=1280&bih=685&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=AWs8l8bHMyHJGM:&imgrefurl=http://www.bible-history.com/archaeology/rome/1-arch-of-titus-bb.html&docid=mBtA70U-QoreQM&imgurl=http://www.bible-history.com/archaeology/rome/arch_of_titus_menorah-copy.jpg&w=800&h=446&ei=KvbRT53oLdSe6QHT292PAw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=377&vpy=169&dur=13120&hovh=167&hovw=301&tx=177&ty=192&sig=109077926933290871023&page=1&tbnh=121&tbnw=217&start=0&ndsp=17&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:77

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.