Dishonest Apologetics

[twb1621]

twb

Your reference to leprosy.

Still today this is a disease that is incurable.

Actually, it is curable.

diseases.emedtv.com/leprosy/cure-leprosy.html

By the way, Blessed Damien of Molokai, the priest who sacrificed his life to treat lepers in 19th Century Hawaii, will be canonized October 11, if I’m not mistaken.

Thanks Charlemagne, yes they can since antibiotics came about you are correct. I was referring to curing it in that the damages could not be reversed but I should have worded it better, thanks again. Thats awesome about Blessed Damien of Molokai, I wasn’t aware of that…

 

[twb1621]

Do you know what kind of personal items we could identify as something that only Jesus would have? If there are such things, I think does a good job of answering the question of whether it was the right grave. By the way, what site are you talking about? I don’t think I ever mentioned a specific site.

I don’t believe there is any personal item in itself that only one person can be said to possess unless it was labeled in some way and time dating could authenticate it. With archeological discoveries It is a compilation that together provides the degree of conclusiveness. However, through experience we already know what is to be expected in burial places of those held in high esteem. The site I was referring to was the one in the Talpiot hills, of Jerusalem.

But I still don’t know why the Jews couldn’t have placed someone else in Jesus’ tomb after realizing that he had been resurrected. When I try to put myself in the shoes of a believer, I just don’t think a discovery like that would be able to shake my faith.

I am not sure I understand your question here.

 

[twb1621]

I know you’re not an expert, but do you know if there would be any way to identify an early forgery made by a single author? It definitely seems possible that as Christianity was spreading those opposing it might circulate false documents. I don’t think it would be hard to have such a document be written by a single author.

There have been many writings determined to be fraudulent or at least suspicious which is why many texts were not accepted or included in the Bible or referred to in the teachings of Christ. Some ancient texts were considered authoritative but were dropped because they could not be reasonably authenticated and some books although well regarded were written too late and/or not believed to be apostolic, so they were not included.

Or at least he thought there was something well worth the risk.

Him and all that believed in His word based on what they heard and witnessed considering they all chose to die for it.

I wouldn’t think that any of those things would allow us to find out what went on in Jesus’ head and know why he did the things that he did. But I guess it’s possible that he could have had some ulterior motive that we might be able to find evidence for. I guess that might work as circumstantial evidence against Christianity, but I don’t think it’s the kind of evidence that would be likely to exist, even if Christianity was false. And if tons of evidence like this does exist, as in the case of Mormonism, religions still survive.

Not in Jesus mind, but they can help in some ways to determine motivation and to determine priorities, life styles, classes of people and belief systems in some ways.

We clearly have different views of biblical prophecy.

I provided some of the prophecies in a previous post for you

 

[twb1621]

Some of my replies in previous messages were a little short, so I’ll try to expand more on my reasoning so you can try to identify where you think I’m in error.

“……especially given how frequently the gospels disagree on the specific details (such as the events surrounding the resurrection). So that’s why I currently don’t think that biblical prophecy is good evidence.”

What disagrees in the gospels that you are referring to?

I think the second part of your response here has been addressed previously so I wont respond again unless you specifically request it again.

I agree that the gospels were probably based on the stories handed down by the apostles. I just think that it’s possible for there to have been some mythologization in the intervening years. I also think it’s possible, though less likely, that some of the miraculous events were based on real non-supernatural events. Jesus could have performed tricks in order to convince people. I don’t think it would necessarily have been considered dishonest to perform marvelous acts to demonstrate God’s power. I saw an interesting show (Ancient Discoveries: Machines of the Gods) on all the technologies that religions used around the time of Jesus in order to make it appear that miracles were happening in the temples. They were so impressive that if I had been around then and had experienced them, I am pretty sure that I would have been convinced with absolute certainty that God exists. Now I’m not saying that Jesus constructed elaborate mechanical devises (though he was a carpenter ), but I just think that it would not have been too difficult to perform a convincing trick or illusion. Much like magic shows today, when the audience tells the story again later, they make it sound even more impressive. But again, I’m not completely convinced that the miracle accounts were rooted in real events.

I didn’t see that show although I would have like to see it. All my curiosity you know… But at the same time I have researched for six years and have no doubts. In order to confirm much of what you say it would require confirming each miracle, which is not reasonable. But as an investigator I can tell you there is a point where reasonable circumstantial evidence in its cumulative form becomes in itself irrefutable. There is always s the slightest chance DNA can be wrong but you know the odds of that. I wish I could present you with each detail but some you will have to choose to seek answers for directly. You know that already though. I thought we talked about the magic thing already.?

Well we had been talking about the miracles stories in the New Testament. Much as it’s often impossible to know how a magician did his trick just based on someone’s account of it (since they probably didn’t notice the sleight of hand, or the device he used to fool the audience), it’s hard to verify something as a miracle based only on the 2000-year-old testimony of believers. And I doubt that the non-Christians back then would have been able to debunk them since there wouldn’t be tangible evidence to prove or disprove the miracle.

By the way, regarding the modern miracles, I completely agree. I think skeptics have harshly criticized those miracles that rest on very shaky foundations. I agree with you that we do not have natural explanations for many of the Catholic Church’s claimed miracles. So if you define a miracles as that for which there is no complete natural explanation, then I agree that there have been many miracles. I just think that if you define miracles like that, they aren’t evidence of God. If you define them in that way, then thousands of years ago, there were an unbelievable amount of miracles taking place, merely because medical knowledge was so poor. But over the years, these would have changed from miracles to non-miracles. I do not assume that our understanding of the human body is perfect, far from it (just think about how little we still know about the brain). Because of this, I just don’t think that miracles should be taken as evidence of God, unless we have a convincing reason to believe that they will never have a natural explanation.

There are no natural explanations for any of the Catholic Church’s claimed miracles. Don’t sell yourself short. As far as anything outside of the Bible, I am sure that long ago due to the lack of recognition there were occurrences claimed as miraculous that in fact were not. We must recognize this as well as the possibility and occurrence of true miracles. If nothing were supernatural, nothing would be beyond our capabilities or conceivability. The realization is we are limited. There comes a point when a person must realize based on EVERYTHING involved, there is more to life than what we can percieve and it is then a person can find there way to the Creator.

Look at it this way. If you don’t pick up the phone and call me, I’m not going to answer you. If the only time you call me is when you want something from me, don’t bother calling. But if I mean something to you and we have a real relationship, please call and I will answer you. Get the picture?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Thought you might enjoy a twist on Jean-Paul Sartre;

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/08/04/learning-from-sartre/

In Christ,

dj

Thanks for the link. I haven’t read much by Sartre and I don’t consider myself an existentialist, but it was an interesting read nonetheless.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/darek_barefoot/dangerous.html

I thought this article was really good. Darek Barefoot made some good points, but I didn’t agree with everything he said. His argument is pretty complex, so I can’t be sure my assessment after one read is accurate, but I thought I’d share some of my thoughts on his piece. If you think I misunderstood something, feel free to point that out.

First of all, I agree with him that we don’t have scientific proof that our minds are merely material. I also agree with him that we can’t be certain that our beliefs are correct. I haven’t studied the various theories of mind closely (that’s one thing I’ve been meaning to get to at some point), so I didn’t know how true his criticisms were. But it seems like even if the theories of mind he criticized were wrong, it’s possible that the correct theory is not one of the most commonly discussed ones. But I’ll keep his criticisms in mind when I look into some of the different theories.

One argument of his that I thought was surprisingly weak, so much so that I wonder if I’m misreading it, is the following:

1. Only the physical properties of representations can generate functional states in computational systems.
2. Propositions cannot be identified with the physical properties of their representations.
3. Therefore, propositions cannot generate functional states in computational systems.
4. Propositions generate some beliefs in minds.
5. Therefore, all beliefs in minds cannot be identified with, or wholly depend upon, functional states in computational systems.

I don’t know why 4 is true. I don’t think it is a proposition itself that causes some effect in the mind; I just think that there are evolutionary reasons why organisms whose beliefs correspond with reality would become dominant. A creature that thinks predators are prey and prey are predators is not going to survive long. A creature that thinks jumping off cliffs is how you reproduce is not going to survive very long.

I also agree with the point that all science is just patterns. It’s theoretically possible (even if incredibly unlikely) that all our results were merely due to random chance, even for something as fundamental as gravity.

He says that “Since we cannot identify rules as the patterns they generate, we are left with two possibilities. The first is that rules are mere illusion, as is our ability to predict the behavior of physical objects such as falling apples and orbiting planets. The second, infinitely more attractive alternative, is that rules exist independently of the patterns they generate.” It seems like he’s saying that unless rules actually exist in some Platonic realist sense, there could not be any consistent patterns in the universe. I disagree, and I don’t think he backs up this claim. Even if there is no God and no separate realm in which physical laws exist, it seems inevitable that there would be some regularity in the universe. Even a random distribution of matter would be a form of order. If a rule is a pattern that has always and will always exist, then I don’t see why this would be impossible without some separate realm consisting of rules.

Finally, Barefoot says that there are natural laws which exist and must be due to God, but what about the law that God can bring something about merely by willing it? It does not seem possible that God could have created all natural laws.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Research.php

This link was mainly about future research, so I didn’t find it that helpful. I did look around the site, and thought that some of the Faraday Papers were interesting, though I had heard the arguments before and thought that they were better presented in some of the other links.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode…sm/design.html

I checked out a few of the articles on the site, but I didn’t find any strong arguments for God’s existence. There are definitely a lot of articles on infidels.org that I want to read once I get the chance. I think the ones where they have experts from both sides write responses to each other’s articles are especially useful to read.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

don’t believe there is any personal item in itself that only one person can be said to possess unless it was labeled in some way and time dating could authenticate it. With archeological discoveries It is a compilation that together provides the degree of conclusiveness. However, through experience we already know what is to be expected in burial places of those held in high esteem. The site I was referring to was the one in the Talpiot hills, of Jerusalem.

I get why we could rule out some discoveries as not being Jesus’ tomb, but I’m not sure how, if we found his tomb, we could confirm that it was his. Since Jesus was a fairly common name, I don’t think that the discovery of a body in a first-century tomb of someone held in high esteem with the name Jesus would be good evidence that Jesus was not resurrected.

I am not sure I understand your question here.

I was saying that if Jesus was actually bodily resurrected and his tomb was empty, isn’t it possible that someone could have later put someone else’s body in Jesus’ tomb? Once Christianity started growing, some Jews might have wanted to prevent it from spreading and might have placed someone else’s body in Jesus’ tomb to make people think that the Christian story was a lie.

So overall, I’m not sure that there could be an archeological discovery that would provide good evidence that Christianity is false, even if it is.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Charlemagne II,

Thanks for the intersting link… and… for the nte on soon-to-be Saint Damien of Molokai

twb

Your reference to leprosy.

Still today this is a disease that is incurable.

Actually, it is curable.

diseases.emedtv.com/leprosy/cure-leprosy.html

By the way, Blessed Damien of Molokai, the priest who sacrificed his life to treat lepers in 19th Century Hawaii, will be canonized October 11, if I’m not mistaken.

God bless

 

[anEvilAtheist]

There have been many writings determined to be fraudulent or at least suspicious which is why many texts were not accepted or included in the Bible or referred to in the teachings of Christ. Some ancient texts were considered authoritative but were dropped because they could not be reasonably authenticated and some books although well regarded were written too late and/or not believed to be apostolic, so they were not included.

I agree that if it’s fake, you might be able to tell. But the problem is that if you have something written at about the right time, you can’t verify whether it’s authentic. If there was a document discovered from about the right time period which purported to be a confession by one of the apostles that Jesus was not the messiah, I see no reason to assume that it is authentic. I guess such a discovery could be considered mild evidence against Christianity. I just think that unless you can tell whether it’s genuine, it wouldn’t be much evidence against Christianity. Also, I don’t think there likely would be such a document even if Christianity was false.

Him and all that believed in His word based on what they heard and witnessed considering they all chose to die for it.

But that doesn’t mean it was true. You could say the same thing about suicide cults.

Not in Jesus mind, but they can help in some ways to determine motivation and to determine priorities, life styles, classes of people and belief systems in some ways.

Okay.

I provided some of the prophecies in a previous post for you

Thanks. I’ll take a look.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

What disagrees in the gospels that you are referring to?

As far as disagreements in the events surrounding the resurrection, I was mostly talking about Easter Challenge stuff (ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=stone). I know there are attempts to reconcile them, and I don’t claim that these apparent contradictions disprove the Bible; I just think that given the number of differences between the gospel accounts, there is good reason to doubt whether all the events depicted in the gospels actually happened.

I didn’t see that show although I would have like to see it. All my curiosity you know…

In case it was unclear, I the machines in the show weren’t Christian. But it does indicate that back then, it may not have been seen as improper for religious leaders to use amazing feats of human ingenuity (tricks) in order to inspire a sense of religious awe.

But at the same time I have researched for six years and have no doubts. In order to confirm much of what you say it would require confirming each miracle, which is not reasonable. But as an investigator I can tell you there is a point where reasonable circumstantial evidence in its cumulative form becomes in itself irrefutable. There is always s the slightest chance DNA can be wrong but you know the odds of that. I wish I could present you with each detail but some you will have to choose to seek answers for directly. You know that already though.

At this point, I don’t think the circumstantial evidence points towards Christianity being true. I’m know you believe it does, but we’re different people and we’ve seen different things.

I thought we talked about the magic thing already.?

Yeah I think we talked about it before for a little bit.

There are no natural explanations for any of the Catholic Church’s claimed miracles. Don’t sell yourself short.

I think there’s a very good natural explanation for the miracle Mother Theresa supposedly performed. But we discussed that earlier, so I won’t repeat myself.

As far as anything outside of the Bible, I am sure that long ago due to the lack of recognition there were occurrences claimed as miraculous that in fact were not. We must recognize this as well as the possibility and occurrence of true miracles. If nothing were supernatural, nothing would be beyond our capabilities or conceivability. The realization is we are limited. There comes a point when a person must realize based on EVERYTHING involved, there is more to life than what we can percieve and it is then a person can find there way to the Creator.

Look at it this way. If you don’t pick up the phone and call me, I’m not going to answer you. If the only time you call me is when you want something from me, don’t bother calling. But if I mean something to you and we have a real relationship, please call and I will answer you. Get the picture?

I don’t assume that the observable universe is all there is. I just think that religions are merely guesses at what’s outside our universe. I don’t think I’ve ever “called” God asking for a selfish favor, I’ve just asked for a sign that he exists.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

This thread will soon have reached its end - and, I guess it is a type of accomplishment that you have managed to dismiss all logical arguments as either inappropriate or as ‘circumstantial evidence’ in your quest to maintain your position. But, let’s take a look at one of your items that really should be examined.

As far as disagreements in the events surrounding the resurrection, I was mostly talking about Easter Challenge stuff (ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=stone). I know there are attempts to reconcile them, and I don’t claim that these apparent contradictions disprove the Bible; I just think that given the number of differences between the gospel accounts, there is good reason to doubt whether all the events depicted in the gospels actually happened.

Upon the arrest of Jesus on Holy Thursday night - all of the Apostles were filled with fear and ran away as men trying to save their lives. For the past three years they have lived with Christ and still did not comprehend what He was really here to do…even when He repeatedly told them. As you will recall, Peter himself chided Christ on scaring the Apostles about making statements concerning His impending death. Save for John, whatever courage this little band of men had - totally evaporated when Christ was crucified on Good Friday. All day Saturday, these cowardly Apostles spent the day fueling their fear and huddled together behind a locked door. Ah, but come Sunday morning - the first Easter the women show up to finish the Jewish burial ritual - and found the tomb empty! The angel spoke to women and told them to announce to the Apostles that Christ had risen as He said He would - and the women go to the Apostles - who greet them with … DISBELIEF! (What a group of frauds, eh?! )

As you will recall, Potus Pilate rubuffed the Jewish leaders when they asked for a Roman guard to guard the tomb becaue they anticipated something would happen. Since they knew their Scripture - they knew it was the Resurrection. Pilate had had enough of these religious leaders and told them to post their own guard - and, they did! Now, even today, a member of the military that sleeps on guard duty is subject to significant punishment … back then everyone knew to sleep on guard duty was to voluntarily go to one’s own execution. The idea that these guards went to sleep is possible … but, highly unlikely.

Christ is on earth and repeatedly appears to the Apostles - and even St. Thomas did not believe until he saw the Risen Savior himself. The written account of the Gospels does nto show foolish men who would believe anything - if anything, it shows cowardly men who were very slow to believe. This is hardly the stuff of building a Resurrection conspiracy.

But, the last bit that I wish to share with you as foolish and cowardly as they men proved themselves to be - before Pentecost - they boldly and fearlessly proclaimed the Gospel - and were executed for their Faith. Foolish and cowardly people do not do this - but, even if you think so … those people who had no direct contact with Jesus but were taught by the Apostles, were murdered for their Faith - and this surely deserves some attention.

No one dies for atheism.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, EvilAtheist

No doubt about it - Thomas Paine is a well remembered American. But, it is an exaggeration to say he ‘tackled this matter (of the Resurrection)’ very well. Let’s take a look at your link and see what is said.

As far as disagreements in the events surrounding the resurrection, I was mostly talking about Easter Challenge stuff (ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=stone). I know there are attempts to reconcile them, and I don’t claim that these apparent contradictions disprove the Bible; I just think that given the number of differences between the gospel accounts, there is good reason to doubt whether all the events depicted in the gospels actually happened.

Thomas Paine tackled this matter two hundred years ago in The Age of Reason, stumbling across dozens of New Testament discrepancies:

"I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted," he wrote, "first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true."

According to Paine’s theory - no account of any event is to be believed. If everything agrees - that is no proof and if anything disagrees - that only proves it did not happen. Just what kind of proof is acceptable? Eye witnesses differ all the time - in fact, if they all give the same story, there is an excellent chance they got together to ‘refine’ their stories.

I think two items need to be kept firmly in mind: 1.) writing styles of today should not be used to analyze writing styles of the First Century, and 2.) the Word of God is not a transcript - there is a way of getting across a message - and God chose the way He determined to be best. The first written account (Gospel) was done about the year 65AD and the last account written about the year 100AD ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospels )

Just as a matter of fact - neither Mohammad or Joseph Smith proclaimed that they would be killed (Mohammad died of natural causes) adn then came back from the dead. both men remained quite dead after they died…just like everyone else - except Jesus Christ. So, if you want to believe Someone - believe in the Man who did what no one else has or ever will do again - rise from the dead on His Own Power.

God bless

 

[anEvilAtheist]

No other has met all of these prophecies. The following is offered by Jews who studied the theories.
“all the first followers of Jesus were Jews. In fact, the rabbis of that time period and afterwards were well aware of the many Messianic prophecies which Christians claimed were fulfilled in Jesus. So for instance, although the Talmudic rabbis concurred that Isaiah 53 was a prediction of the Messiah, by medieval times the pressure from those who applied this prophecy to Jesus was so great that Rashi, that greatest medieval Biblical scholar, reinterpreted the chapter and said it referred to the nation of Israel. This interpretation is maintained today by many Jewish scholars, though it only dates back to the Middle Ages.

What, then, are some of the credentials of the Messiah? Only a few can be listed below; there are many others. All of these passages were recognized by the early rabbis as referring to the Messiah:
Messiah was to be born at Bethlehem: Micah 5:1

Based on the reasons given for why Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem, and some of the apparent contradictions with the historical evidence, this strikes me as something added to the narrative in order to fulfill this prophecy and I’m doubtful that he actually was born in Bethlehem.

Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah: Genesis 49:10

I have some issues with inconsistencies in the genealogies of Jesus. Also, isn’t tribal membership only conveyed from father to son through a blood relationship?

Messiah would present himself by riding on an ***: Zechariah 9:9

Wow, did the filter just censor the Bible for using inappropriate language? That’s pretty strict.

This is also something that seems like a later addition to the Jesus story. Matthew 21 has Jesus riding two animals while the rest have him riding one. This seems like it could have been due to a misunderstanding of the passage from Zechariah when trying to work prophecy fulfillment into the story of Jesus’ life.

Messiah would be tortured to death: Psalm 22

I don’t know much about this prophecy, but it doesn’t seem incredibly unlikely that someone claiming to be a messiah would end up being tortured to death.

Messiah would arrive before the destruction of the Second Temple: Daniel 9:24-27

I also don’t know this prophecy very well. Was there really 7 and 62 weeks between a decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the coming of Jesus?

Messiah’s life would match a particular description, including suffering, silence at his arrest and trial, death and burial in a rich man’s tomb, and resurrection: Isaiah 52:13-53:12

It doesn’t seem that unlikely that someone who claimed to be the messiah would be seen as dangerous by the ruling powers and would be killed (regardless of whether he really was the messiah). Most of this is stuff that someone who wanted to appear to be the messiah (or thought he was the messiah), could easily fulfill. Except of course the resurrection, but I don’t think the evidence of that is strong enough to make the supernatural explanation more likely than some of the natural ones.

In detail as to lineage, birthplace, time, and lifestyle, Jesus matched the Messianic expectations of the Hebrew Scriptures. The record of this fulfillment is to be found in the pages of the New Testament. But several other factors combine to further substantiate the Messiahship of Jesus.
In the first place, he claimed to be the Messiah! When a woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming.” he replied, "I who speak to you am he."1 Naturally, that doesn’t prove anything one way or the other. But if Jesus had never made the claim to be the Messiah, why would we bother to try and prove that he was? His own claim lays the groundwork for the rest of the evidence.
Also, Jesus’ life is in sharp contrast to that of the false Messiahs, and it is a positive demonstration of what we would expect the Messiah to do. Thus, Jesus worked many miracles of healing, bringing wholeness into people’s lives, forgiving sin and restoring relationships. In contrast with Shabbetai Zevi, for instance, Jesus carried out the Law of Moses as a devout Jew. And in contrast with Bar Kochba, although Jesus also died, he was resurrected!

I’m certainly not saying there were people with better claims to have been the messiah than Jesus.

The resurrection is a third piece of additional evidence, and it is perhaps the most convincing vindication of Jesus’ claims. It is interesting that an Israeli scholar, Pinchas Lapide, has written a book which has attracted no small amount of attention in the Jewish community. The reason is that Lapide has said that the resurrection of Jesus is well within the realm of possibility. After all, he reasoned, the Hebrew Scriptures give a number of accounts of people coming back to life. Why not Jesus as well? Regrettably, Lapide fails to note that the resurrection of Jesus is described in terms that go far beyond the resucitations of the other stories; and, he fails to come to grips with the fact that Jesus predicted his own resurrection, which vindicated his claims to Messiahship.”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

Seriously now, aren’t you finding this approach just a bit tedious…?

Based on the reasons given for why Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem, and some of the apparent contradictions with the historical evidence, this strikes me as something added to the narrative in order to fulfill this prophecy and I’m doubtful that he actually was born in Bethlehem.

While merely saying you do not believe something may satisfy you - it does nothing to further a thoughtful discussion. Since you want to engage members of this list - you really need to come up with something more then unsupportable opinion.

If you do not think Jesus was born in Bethlehem - just where do you think he was born? And, please give a rationale besides you simply do not wish to believe the Gospels.

God bless

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

This thread will soon have reached its end - and, I guess it is a type of accomplishment that you have managed to dismiss all logical arguments as either inappropriate or as ‘circumstantial evidence’ in your quest to maintain your position. But, let’s take a look at one of your items that really should be examined.

Yeah, I can’t believe this thread has lasted as long as it did. I think that when I dismissed arguments, I did so for logical reasons (though I’m sure I made a mistake or two over the course of the thread). I do not assume that all versions of those arguments must be invalid, or that the problems I pointed out could not possibly be resolved, but I do not think that any of the arguments were such that they should convince any reasonable person to believe.

Upon the arrest of Jesus on Holy Thursday night - all of the Apostles were filled with fear and ran away as men trying to save their lives. For the past three years they have lived with Christ and still did not comprehend what He was really here to do…even when He repeatedly told them. As you will recall, Peter himself chided Christ on scaring the Apostles about making statements concerning His impending death. Save for John, whatever courage this little band of men had - totally evaporated when Christ was crucified on Good Friday. All day Saturday, these cowardly Apostles spent the day fueling their fear and huddled together behind a locked door. Ah, but come Sunday morning - the first Easter the women show up to finish the Jewish burial ritual - and found the tomb empty! The angel spoke to women and told them to announce to the Apostles that Christ had risen as He said He would - and the women go to the Apostles - who greet them with … DISBELIEF! (What a group of frauds, eh?! )

As you will recall, Potus Pilate rubuffed the Jewish leaders when they asked for a Roman guard to guard the tomb becaue they anticipated something would happen. Since they knew their Scripture - they knew it was the Resurrection. Pilate had had enough of these religious leaders and told them to post their own guard - and, they did! Now, even today, a member of the military that sleeps on guard duty is subject to significant punishment … back then everyone knew to sleep on guard duty was to voluntarily go to one’s own execution. The idea that these guards went to sleep is possible … but, highly unlikely.

Christ is on earth and repeatedly appears to the Apostles - and even St. Thomas did not believe until he saw the Risen Savior himself. The written account of the Gospels does nto show foolish men who would believe anything - if anything, it shows cowardly men who were very slow to believe. This is hardly the stuff of building a Resurrection conspiracy.

But, the last bit that I wish to share with you as foolish and cowardly as they men proved themselves to be - before Pentecost - they boldly and fearlessly proclaimed the Gospel - and were executed for their Faith. Foolish and cowardly people do not do this - but, even if you think so … those people who had no direct contact with Jesus but were taught by the Apostles, were murdered for their Faith - and this surely deserves some attention.

No one dies for atheism.

God bless

It definitely does deserve attention. It just seems more likely to me that there was no empty tomb and that dreams or visions of Jesus convinced the apostles that Jesus had appeared to them after his death.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hi, EvilAtheist

No doubt about it - Thomas Paine is a well remembered American. But, it is an exaggeration to say he ‘tackled this matter (of the Resurrection)’ very well. Let’s take a look at your link and see what is said.

Thomas Paine tackled this matter two hundred years ago in The Age of Reason, stumbling across dozens of New Testament discrepancies:

"I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted," he wrote, "first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true."

According to Paine’s theory - no account of any event is to be believed. If everything agrees - that is no proof and if anything disagrees - that only proves it did not happen. Just what kind of proof is acceptable? Eye witnesses differ all the time - in fact, if they all give the same story, there is an excellent chance they got together to ‘refine’ their stories.

I think two items need to be kept firmly in mind: 1.) writing styles of today should not be used to analyze writing styles of the First Century, and 2.) the Word of God is not a transcript - there is a way of getting across a message - and God chose the way He determined to be best. The first written account (Gospel) was done about the year 65AD and the last account written about the year 100AD ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospels )

Just as a matter of fact - neither Mohammad or Joseph Smith proclaimed that they would be killed (Mohammad died of natural causes) adn then came back from the dead. both men remained quite dead after they died…just like everyone else - except Jesus Christ. So, if you want to believe Someone - believe in the Man who did what no one else has or ever will do again - rise from the dead on His Own Power.

God bless

I pretty much agree with this entire post (except of course for the part about Jesus rising from the dead). I guess one of my points with bringing this article up was to say that the gospels were not perfect transcripts of what happened. I believe that the oral tradition built upon a base of historical fact, and some things may have been embellished as speakers filled in some of the gaps in what was known of Jesus. I also think that if someone was certain that Jesus was the messiah, he would have had no problem with adding prophecy fulfillment to the narrative since he would be confident that it actually took place.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

Seriously now, aren’t you finding this approach just a bit tedious…?

While merely saying you do not believe something may satisfy you - it does nothing to further a thoughtful discussion. Since you want to engage members of this list - you really need to come up with something more then unsupportable opinion.

If you do not think Jesus was born in Bethlehem - just where do you think he was born? And, please give a rationale besides you simply do not wish to believe the Gospels.

God bless

I apologize for explaining my position in more detail. The debate over the origins of Jesus is a pretty significant one. I haven’t explored it in great depth, but I figured that what I said would be enough for twb1621 to get an idea of where I was coming from (given his extensive study of prophecy).

I think that Jesus was most likely born in Nazareth. This seems to be the opinion of many modern historians such as Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz (The Historical Jesus), who concluded that “Jesus came from Nazareth. The shift of his birthplace to Bethlehem is a result of religious fantasy and imagination: because according to scripture the messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, Jesus’ birth is transferred there.”

Luke 1-2 indicates that Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria and during the reign of King Herod. But they were not both in power at the same time (with a gap of years). Additionally, there is no evidence in non-Christian sources of any empire-wide tax under Caesar Augustus. It also doesn’t make sense that everyone would have to go back to the city of their ancestors for the census (this would cause quite a lot of unnecessary movement). I’ve looked at a few attempts to resolve this issue and don’t find any of them to be very convincing.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

anEvilAtheist

I really don’t think it serves any purpose to try and reason with atheists about the historical facts concerning Jesus. They all want the Gospels to be a tissue of lies … and so they eagerly await the next “reasoned” expose of the next “lie.”

After all, if the atheist can persuade himself the Gospels are a pack of lies … case closed.

Yet there is nothing he can prove. All he can do is hope to find an inconsistency here and there … 2,000 years after the fact!

 

[anEvilAtheist]

anEvilAtheist

I really don’t think it serves any purpose to try and reason with atheists about the historical facts concerning Jesus. They all want the Gospels to be a tissue of lies … and so they eagerly await the next “reasoned” expose of the next “lie.”

This is one thing that I find really frustrating. It seems like a lot of people assume that everyone who disagrees with them must be willfully ignoring the truth. Some Christians think atheists only disbelieve because they want to live in sin, and some atheists think Christians only believe because they are too weak minded to face the truth and want the comfort that belief in God provides. I don’t think either of these accurately reflect why most people believe or disbelieve in God. I think people believe what they do because that’s where they think the evidence leads.

And I do not “eagerly await the next ‘reasoned’ expose of the next ‘lie.’” You make it seem as if I blindly accept all attacks on Christianity, regardless of how poorly reasoned they are. I am just as critical of bad atheist arguments as I am of bad Christian ones, and there have been a few threads where I’ve ended up having long arguments with both atheists and Christians.

You seem intent on viewing me as someone who desperately wants to disbelieve. I may not be able to convince you otherwise. But I do want to say that the first step to having a meaningful dialog with someone is to try to understand where they’re coming from. If someone made false assumptions about you and started viciously attacking your beliefs, is that someone whose opinions you would be likely to seriously consider? I think that as long as you make false assumptions about atheists and try to blame them for the crimes of people like Hitler and Stalin, you’re more likely to drive them further away from Christianity than to cause them to reevaluate their views. At least that’s how things seem to me.

After all, if the atheist can persuade himself the Gospels are a pack of lies … case closed.

It seems like you’re saying that if someone doesn’t think the Gospels are true, they’re hopeless and will never believe. I disagree. Do you really think that all the apologists who claim to have once been atheists are liars? Should people have not even bothered to try to convince them that Christianity was true back when they didn’t believe?

Now conversion stories don’t prove that Christianity is true, because people also convert from Christianity to atheism, or from Christianity to Islam. But they do show that just because someone currently feels very strongly about their views doesn’t mean that they couldn’t later change their mind in the light of new evidence.

Yet there is nothing he can prove. All he can do is hope to find an inconsistency here and there … 2,000 years after the fact!

You’re absolutely right. I do not claim to be able to prove that Christianity as a whole is false. And it’s very hard to try to figure out exactly what happened 2000 years ago. I have no idea what actually happened. But I think that without good reason to believe in something supernatural, the natural explanations are more plausible. I just don’t think the evidence is in favor of Christianity.