Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Questions For Christians?


Shinzon

Recommended Posts

Why if genesis accounts for the story of creation, why does not a god who has a plan supposesly for creation actually describe the resurrection? Like we know that he supposedly visited people but based of the gospel accounts alone, aliens could have done for the scant details left. Like why not describe the process so that way there is nothing indeterminate about it?

 

Next question

 

If the pharisees could claim that jesus was possesed by the devil, did that make them the first skeptics or was jesus so vague in his supposed power was it just so hard to tell the difference between sorcery and divinty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Bible was clear about anything, you wouldn't need faith. The vagueness and inconsistency is a test of faith. Do not question, simply have faith. That's the apologist argument anyways.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If indeed the bible was authored by an omni-omni god, it should have been written coherently for the humans that would read it and need to understand it.

 

It simply wasn't written by a god, nor is it coherent.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why if genesis accounts for the story of creation, why does not a god who has a plan supposesly for creation actually describe the resurrection? Like we know that he supposedly visited people but based of the gospel accounts alone, aliens could have done for the scant details left. Like why not describe the process so that way there is nothing indeterminate about it?

 

Next question

 

If the pharisees could claim that jesus was possesed by the devil, did that make them the first skeptics or was jesus so vague in his supposed power was it just so hard to tell the difference between sorcery and divinty?

 

 

Your first question:

 

Are you asking why God did not describe the "how" of the resurrection?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why if genesis accounts for the story of creation, why does not a god who has a plan supposesly for creation actually describe the resurrection? Like we know that he supposedly visited people but based of the gospel accounts alone, aliens could have done for the scant details left. Like why not describe the process so that way there is nothing indeterminate about it?

 

Next question

 

If the pharisees could claim that jesus was possesed by the devil, did that make them the first skeptics or was jesus so vague in his supposed power was it just so hard to tell the difference between sorcery and divinty?

 

 

Your first question:

 

Are you asking why God did not describe the "how" of the resurrection?  

 

 

Where's that skeptical appraisal, Ironhorse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Bible was written by an All Knowing "god", then he could have predicted that Neil Armstrong would be the first man to step foot on the Moon, in A.D. 1969. That would impress me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why if genesis accounts for the story of creation, why does not a god who has a plan supposesly for creation actually describe the resurrection? Like we know that he supposedly visited people but based of the gospel accounts alone, aliens could have done for the scant details left. Like why not describe the process so that way there is nothing indeterminate about it?

Next question

If the pharisees could claim that jesus was possesed by the devil, did that make them the first skeptics or was jesus so vague in his supposed power was it just so hard to tell the difference between sorcery and divinty?

 

 

 

Your first question:

 

Are you asking why God did not describe the "how" of the resurrection?

yeah the mechanics of the process. If he did it would have killed stuff like swoon theory, hallucinations etc dead. We wouldnt need historical arguememts for the resurrection.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

 

Why if genesis accounts for the story of creation, why does not a god who has a plan supposesly for creation actually describe the resurrection? Like we know that he supposedly visited people but based of the gospel accounts alone, aliens could have done for the scant details left. Like why not describe the process so that way there is nothing indeterminate about it?

 

Next question

 

If the pharisees could claim that jesus was possesed by the devil, did that make them the first skeptics or was jesus so vague in his supposed power was it just so hard to tell the difference between sorcery and divinty?

 

 

Your first question:

 

Are you asking why God did not describe the "how" of the resurrection?  

 

Ironhorse asks questions because he knows that proper discourse depends on the free exchange of ideas between mutually respectful participants.  Ironhorse knows that such quid pro quo exchanges are the foundation of social interactions.  Ironhorse appreciates the respect demonstrated when someone answers a question of his.  As a result, Ironhorse also respectfully answers questions that are asked of him.

 

Ironhorse is polite to classmates and teachers; "please" and "thank you" says Ironhorse with a smile.  Ironhorse likes people; and people like Ironhorse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi IH we were discussing you recently.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

 

Why if genesis accounts for the story of creation, why does not a god who has a plan supposesly for creation actually describe the resurrection? Like we know that he supposedly visited people but based of the gospel accounts alone, aliens could have done for the scant details left. Like why not describe the process so that way there is nothing indeterminate about it?

Next question

If the pharisees could claim that jesus was possesed by the devil, did that make them the first skeptics or was jesus so vague in his supposed power was it just so hard to tell the difference between sorcery and divinty?

 

 

Your first question:

 

Are you asking why God did not describe the "how" of the resurrection?

yeah the mechanics of the process. If he did it would have killed stuff like swoon theory, hallucinations etc dead. We wouldnt need historical arguememts for the resurrection.

 

 

 

So an argument you use against Christianity is that God did not leave us the formula for bringing a dead body back to life?

 

I have never heard that one before. I think the novel "Tuck Everlasting" offers a few good reasons why that would not be a good idea for the masses in this world.

 

 

One thing I have always wondered is why the religious leaders at the time did not write and denounce the resurrection as a lie. They were aware of what the Disciples were teaching. It seems they would have gone out of their way to stamp this idea of a resurrection out.

 

 

There are references to Jesus and the crucifixion (and other parts of the story) in the Talmud but these were written several centuries later.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

 

 

 

Why if genesis accounts for the story of creation, why does not a god who has a plan supposesly for creation actually describe the resurrection? Like we know that he supposedly visited people but based of the gospel accounts alone, aliens could have done for the scant details left. Like why not describe the process so that way there is nothing indeterminate about it?

Next question

If the pharisees could claim that jesus was possesed by the devil, did that make them the first skeptics or was jesus so vague in his supposed power was it just so hard to tell the difference between sorcery and divinty?

 

 

Your first question:

 

Are you asking why God did not describe the "how" of the resurrection?

yeah the mechanics of the process. If he did it would have killed stuff like swoon theory, hallucinations etc dead. We wouldnt need historical arguememts for the resurrection.

 

 

 

So an argument you use against Christianity is that God did not leave us the formula for bringing a dead body back to life?

 

I have never heard that one before. I think the novel "Tuck Everlasting" offers a few good reasons why that would not be a good idea for the masses in this world.

 

 

One thing I have always wondered is why the religious leaders at the time did not write and denounce the resurrection as a lie. They were aware of what the Disciples were teaching. It seems they would have gone out of their way to stamp this idea of a resurrection out.

 

 

There are references to Jesus and the crucifixion (and other parts of the story) in the Talmud but these were written several centuries later.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

 

One thing I've always wondered is why jesus didn't go and show himself to the religious leaders after the "resurrection", thus proving himself to truly be the messiah.  Was he afraid they'd kill him again?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Why if genesis accounts for the story of creation, why does not a god who has a plan supposesly for creation actually describe the resurrection? Like we know that he supposedly visited people but based of the gospel accounts alone, aliens could have done for the scant details left. Like why not describe the process so that way there is nothing indeterminate about it?

Next question

If the pharisees could claim that jesus was possesed by the devil, did that make them the first skeptics or was jesus so vague in his supposed power was it just so hard to tell the difference between sorcery and divinty?

 

 

Your first question:

 

Are you asking why God did not describe the "how" of the resurrection?

yeah the mechanics of the process. If he did it would have killed stuff like swoon theory, hallucinations etc dead. We wouldnt need historical arguememts for the resurrection.

 

 

 

So an argument you use against Christianity is that God did not leave us the formula for bringing a dead body back to life?

 

I have never heard that one before. I think the novel "Tuck Everlasting" offers a few good reasons why that would not be a good idea for the masses in this world.

 

 

One thing I have always wondered is why the religious leaders at the time did not write and denounce the resurrection as a lie. They were aware of what the Disciples were teaching. It seems they would have gone out of their way to stamp this idea of a resurrection out.

 

 

There are references to Jesus and the crucifixion (and other parts of the story) in the Talmud but these were written several centuries later.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

 

One thing I've always wondered is why jesus didn't go and show himself to the religious leaders after the "resurrection", thus proving himself to truly be the messiah.  Was he afraid they'd kill him again?

 

 

 

 

That is a good question. I think the answer is that Jesus way way too cool to resort to such showboating.

 

 

I remember a episode on "Wanted Dead or Alive", the Western show starring Steve McQueen playing Josh Randall, a bounty hunter.

 

He has just collected a thousand dollar bounty from the new sheriff but he gives it back and tells him to give it to the widow of the sheriff who had been murdered by the outlaw. He tell him not to mention that he gave the money back to the widow to the people in town. The people in town resented him and viewed him as a money grabbing bounty hunter. 

 

"Why not let them know? They would be your friends if they knew these good things you do." the sheriff asked as Randall walked out the door.

 

"If that's what it takes for them to be my friends, what kind of friends would that be?" He replied.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why didnt they have a mass conversion if they had no rebuttal to the resurrection in the first century?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many inconsistencies among the four gospel accounts of Jesus' crucifixion, interment, and resurrection.

 

Apologists explain them away at the cost of doing violence to the clear wording of the texts.

 

Therefore the NT is not inerrant. P and not-P cannot both be true under the same set of relations.

 

With an NT that contains errors, Ironhorse, we are now on shifty ground.

 

If an omni-everything God, who goes away and leaves only an old book, does not even assure that the book is free from error, then we are led to wonder, what kind of being is this God?  God could have ensured that the book would be accurate. But it's not.

 

Simple solution: the NT is man-made.

 

[i don't even get started on the OT, the mythical status of the Exodus, etc.]

 

For years now, Ironhorse, you have danced around this problem. You've got nothing of any value to offer. Believe, since it clearly makes you feel good. You provide NO reason why anyone else should believe.

 

I hope you vote for political candidates who will allow non-Christians to live their lives without Christians' trying to control them. Ditto in the other direction.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did they have a mass conversion if they had no rebuttal to the resurrection in the first century?

 

I have wondered why the religious leaders did not stamp out the story quickly in their writings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would kind of like to hear your rational defense in your own words of the ressurection iron horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would kind of like to hear your rational defense in your own words of the ressurection iron horse.

 

Good luck with that.  Ironhorse doesn't do "rational".

 

Ironhorse rarely thinks for himself.  He prefers to cut and paste, reference or paraphrase others' apologetics, his particular Christian sect's dogma, song lyrics he thinks supports his religious beliefs and TV show parables.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would kind of like to hear your rational defense in your own words of the ressurection iron horse.

 

 

Definition of rational

 

:  based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings

:  having the ability to reason or think about things clearly

 

~ Merrian Webster Dictionary 

 

 

 

The story as presented in the scriptures makes sense to me. I'm talking from the first book to the last book. It's a story I believe.

 

No, I can't prove it but to my reasoning it makes sense to me and it is great news. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I would kind of like to hear your rational defense in your own words of the ressurection iron horse.

 

 

Definition of rational

 

:  based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings

:  having the ability to reason or think about things clearly

 

~ Merrian Webster Dictionary 

 

 

 

The story as presented in the scriptures makes sense to me. I'm talking from the first book to the last book. It's a story I believe.

 

No, I can't prove it but to my reasoning it makes sense to me and it is great news. 

 

 

Shinzon,

 

Back in October last year Ironhorse wrote that he had been skeptically appraising his Christian faith for years.

 

Here's the link.  (See post # 76)   http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/70082-baptists/page-4#.VwtLffkrJD8

 

Here's what he wrote.

 

As I have said here more than once, I have already been through the process of skeptically appraising God, the Bible, and the Christian faith. I spent several years doing that and have spent all my life trying to get to the truth of things. I don't claim to know everything about God or the scriptures, but what I know is enough for me to believe it's true. It is what I believe.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

I can't prove that Ironhorse lied about having written a skeptical analysis of his religion; but I believe that is the most plausible explanation as to why he hasn't presented it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't prove that Ironhorse lied about having written a skeptical analysis of his religion; but I believe that is the most plausible explanation as to why he hasn't presented it.

 

No Prof, you can't prove it.

 

But the recorded facts of what he wrote can speak for themselves and every other member can draw their own conclusions accordingly.

 

So your belief that he did lie would be based upon good evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

 

I can't prove that Ironhorse lied about having written a skeptical analysis of his religion; but I believe that is the most plausible explanation as to why he hasn't presented it.

 

No Prof, you can't prove it.

 

But the recorded facts of what he wrote can speak for themselves and every other member can draw their own conclusions accordingly.

 

So your belief that he did lie would be based upon good evidence.

 

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

 

 

 

 

 

Why if genesis accounts for the story of creation, why does not a god who has a plan supposesly for creation actually describe the resurrection? Like we know that he supposedly visited people but based of the gospel accounts alone, aliens could have done for the scant details left. Like why not describe the process so that way there is nothing indeterminate about it?

Next question

If the pharisees could claim that jesus was possesed by the devil, did that make them the first skeptics or was jesus so vague in his supposed power was it just so hard to tell the difference between sorcery and divinty?

 

 

Your first question:

 

Are you asking why God did not describe the "how" of the resurrection?

yeah the mechanics of the process. If he did it would have killed stuff like swoon theory, hallucinations etc dead. We wouldnt need historical arguememts for the resurrection.

 

 

 

So an argument you use against Christianity is that God did not leave us the formula for bringing a dead body back to life?

 

I have never heard that one before. I think the novel "Tuck Everlasting" offers a few good reasons why that would not be a good idea for the masses in this world.

 

 

One thing I have always wondered is why the religious leaders at the time did not write and denounce the resurrection as a lie. They were aware of what the Disciples were teaching. It seems they would have gone out of their way to stamp this idea of a resurrection out.

 

 

There are references to Jesus and the crucifixion (and other parts of the story) in the Talmud but these were written several centuries later.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

 

One thing I've always wondered is why jesus didn't go and show himself to the religious leaders after the "resurrection", thus proving himself to truly be the messiah.  Was he afraid they'd kill him again?

 

 

 

 

That is a good question. I think the answer is that Jesus way way too cool to resort to such showboating.

 

 

I remember a episode on "Wanted Dead or Alive", the Western show starring Steve McQueen playing Josh Randall, a bounty hunter.

 

He has just collected a thousand dollar bounty from the new sheriff but he gives it back and tells him to give it to the widow of the sheriff who had been murdered by the outlaw. He tell him not to mention that he gave the money back to the widow to the people in town. The people in town resented him and viewed him as a money grabbing bounty hunter. 

 

"Why not let them know? They would be your friends if they knew these good things you do." the sheriff asked as Randall walked out the door.

 

"If that's what it takes for them to be my friends, what kind of friends would that be?" He replied.  

 

I think that's a bullshit answer.  I can't prove that it's bullshit; it just makes sense in my mind to believe that it is.

 

Here's the problem.  jesus, who is also yahweh, promised the jews a messiah.  Then jesus came to earth and became the messiah; but the jews killed him.  Of course, that was the plan all along, because in order for jesus to become the messiah, he had to be killed by the jews and then resurrected back to life.  Then, after going through all of that trouble, jesus decided NOT to prove that he was the messiah to the very jews he had promised to send a messiah.  Now all of the jews are burning for all eternity in hell because jesus couldn't be bothered to offer them proof of who he was.  

 

But hey, if equating christ's antisemitism to an old spaghetti Western helps you to believe, TinPony, well then godspeed, my son. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I would kind of like to hear your rational defense in your own words of the ressurection iron horse.

 

 

Definition of rational

 

:  based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings

:  having the ability to reason or think about things clearly

 

~ Merrian Webster Dictionary 

 

 

 

The story as presented in the scriptures makes sense to me. I'm talking from the first book to the last book. It's a story I believe.

 

No, I can't prove it but to my reasoning it makes sense to me and it is great news. 

 

 

 

THIS (^^^) is quite possibly Ironhorse's written "skeptical appraisal" of his religious faith.  Short and sweet.  Thin and shallow.  Empty and myopic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Why didnt they have a mass conversion if they had no rebuttal to the resurrection in the first century?

 

According to Acts 2 three thousand people converted after Peter's message. More were added daily.

 

As I read the history of Christianity, it seemed to have spread quickly through the world.

 

Many accepted the message at a time when doing so might cost you your life.

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.