C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Yeah rising from the dead, just a minor issue.
The gospels were at best hearsay. No one really know who wrote them and modern scholarship generally regards them as anonymous.
- Status
The gospels were at best hearsay. No one really know who wrote them and modern scholarship generally regards them as anonymous.
B
buffalo
Guest
Sources?
B
buffalo
Guest
Uh - they didn’t have the internet back then.
What were you expecting - a newsflash?
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
How about the same level of documentation as any of the real events.
C
curioosbadger
Guest
An Atheist Reads the Bible - 8 - The Empty Tomb
look it up on youtube if you wont want to follow my link:
youtube.com/watch?v=Kj7VSGmKRPw&feature=PlayList&p=C767D1EB39788E5B&index=8
matthew 27:51 would have definitely been mentioned somewhere else if it were anything but a tall tale.
planten, you have it backwards- what has survived is in fact defined as the most most fit for having survived. Thats the reality of the situation, stop trying to conflate the issue with the failed agenda of eugenics.
peary2, your sources are dated, from wikipedia (cd may not like it, but I love it
)
look it up on youtube if you wont want to follow my link:
youtube.com/watch?v=Kj7VSGmKRPw&feature=PlayList&p=C767D1EB39788E5B&index=8
matthew 27:51 would have definitely been mentioned somewhere else if it were anything but a tall tale.
planten, you have it backwards- what has survived is in fact defined as the most most fit for having survived. Thats the reality of the situation, stop trying to conflate the issue with the failed agenda of eugenics.
peary2, your sources are dated, from wikipedia (cd may not like it, but I love it
)
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
lol i don’t really have an issue with the religous that accept evolition. I mean anyone with half a brain knows evolution is a fact.An Atheist Reads the Bible - 8 - The Empty Tomb
look it up on youtube if you wont want to follow my link:
youtube.com/watch?v=Kj7VSGmKRPw&feature=PlayList&p=C767D1EB39788E5B&index=8
matthew 27:51 would have definitely been mentioned somewhere else if it were anything but a tall tale.
planten, you have it backwards- what has survived is in fact defined as the most most fit for having survived. Thats the reality of the situation, stop trying to conflate the issue with the failed agenda of eugenics.
peary2, your sources are dated, from wikipedia (cd may not like it, but I love it
On a personal level i don’t understand how one can accept evolution, but then claim it is guided by an outside force. This goes against the very nature of evolution.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Agreed. Have you ever read any of the great recent works by Catholic theistic evolutionists, like John Haught, Archbishop Zycinski, Celia Deane Drummond, or Sr. Ilia Delio? Have you read Catholicism and Science (Allen and Hess, 2008)? They would not take issue with you regarding evolution.
SatAnastasia
B
buffalo
Guest
Again you show your lack of historical knowledge. They didn’t do it that way back then.
Jesus’ life was spread first orally. Over 500 witnesses saw him alive after He was crucified. They were not depending on a “newspaper”.
C
Contarini
Guest
As any other bizarre claim made by a tiny group of barbarians in a backwater of the Empire?
Why would you expect Roman intellectuals (curious intellectuals wandering around the Empire were the main means by which such stories would become known) to take an interest in such a thing as long as it remained within a small circle of Jews in Jerusalem?
The Resurrection was not and was never claimed to be a public event. Paul says that more than 500 people saw Jesus after the Resurrection, but these were probably already disciples. Jesus didn’t walk down the streets of Jerusalem saying “Na-na-na-na-na-na, you killed me and I’m back.”
Now you may consider the fact that He didn’t do this to be an argument against the reality of the resurrection. But since early Christians never claimed that He did, it makes no sense to base your argument on the fact that most people didn’t notice at the time. Why would they? What was there to notice?
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I’m not sure that’s true. Where “else” are you talking about? Practically the only other literary source for first-century Palestine is Josephus, and he wrote decades later. You and Mr. Darwin seem to think that there were journalists running around Jerusalem.
That being said, I agree that Matt. 27:51 raises huge problems. I’m not particularly interested in defending it.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
First of all, God isn’t an “outside” force.
And in the second place, evolution is a set of causal relationships that can be inferred from the scientific evidence. It doesn’t have a metaphysical “nature” incompatible with divine activity. All sorts of things might have caused it which can’t possibly be observed by the scientific method. (The problem with ID is its claim that a designer can be inferred using the scientific method.)
And I don’t know why your beliefs about the “nature” of “evolution” are “personal.” But then, most of the time I don’t know what people mean by “personal.” It seems to be a meaningless word people use to reassure themselves that they aren’t being rude in daring to disagree with other people in a culture that values “tolerance” above everything else.
Edwin
B
buffalo
Guest
It was recorded. Do you think any of the disciples were in the temple when the curtain was torn? No. They received the information from the Jews who knew of it.
Jewish Talmud in Yoma 39b - *“Forty years before the Temple was destroyed * . . .the gates of the Hekel [Holy Place] opened by themselves, until Rabbi Yohanan B. Zakkai rebuked them [the gates] saying, Hekel, Hekel, why alarmist thou us? We know that thou art destined to be destroyed…”
**“Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin was BANISHED (from the Chamber of Hewn Stone) and sat in the trading station (on the Temple Mount)” - (Shabbat 15a).
J
josie_L
Guest
First of all the NT is not hearsay it is a compilation of eyewitness accounts of a man named Jesus who claimed he was the Christ. Apart from these eyewitness accounts corroborating evidence from the likes of credible historians/officials (secular and religious) Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and other such sources give credence to the fact that a man named Jesus existed and was executed under the reign of Tiberius by roman procurate Pontius Pilate.
P.S. Because all religious movements start off small no one took notice of the growing sect of Christians but obviously as it grew it caught the attention of many people including the emperor Nero. Furthermore, the resurrection was not something that was witnessed by many, however, those who did witness it spread the word and eventually within a very short span of time after Jesus’s death began recording the events they had witnessed. That we even have the gospels and other corroborating sources is unheard of for ancient times.
J
josie_L
Guest
Please find me historical sources that Zeus existed (with contemporary historians backing up his existence), and while we’re at why don’t you find me peer reviewed articles stating Jesus didn’t exist (instead of getting your info from agenda-driven atheists with a case of historical amnesia)?
C
curioosbadger
Guest
well I was talking about wikipedia there it may not be a solid source in itself, but at least it gives you links to follow 
where else? anywhere else. other prophets have little things written about them all over the place. romans loved to take note of all sorts of little things; censuses, taxes, criminal records, when they execute someone.
also matthew didnt write matthew, mark didnt write mark, luke didnt write luke and john didnt write john. its all hear-say from decades after everyone around was dead.
it may not be a solid source in itself, but at least it gives you links to follow where else? anywhere else. other prophets have little things written about them all over the place. romans loved to take note of all sorts of little things; censuses, taxes, criminal records, when they execute someone.
also matthew didnt write matthew, mark didnt write mark, luke didnt write luke and john didnt write john. its all hear-say from decades after everyone around was dead.
B
buffalo
Guest
It caused enough attention to cause an awful lot of murders.
B
buffalo
Guest
So the letters of St Paul are bogus too? The Acts?well I was talking about wikipedia there
where else? anywhere else. other prophets have little things written about them all over the place. romans loved to take note of all sorts of little things; censuses, taxes, criminal records, when they execute someone.
also matthew didnt write matthew, mark didnt write mark, luke didnt write luke and john didnt write john. its all hear-say from decades after everyone around was dead.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Evolution has no place nor need for a god. Where do you posit god interfering with evolution, and what evidence do you have for it?
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
On a side not, how do you all explain away the fact that jesus shared many of the characteristics of the other mythological gods?
C
Contarini
Guest
I apologize. I didn’t check the reference and assumed that you were talking about the story of the dead people coming out of their graves.
The point about the tearing of the temple is even better. This is probably an example of what Robert Gundry would call Matthaean “midrash” (I don’t know if Gundry applies the concept here, but I think it fits). I am not going to defend the claim that this (or various other details peculiar to Matthew’s account) actually happened. I would say that Matthew is probably the least historically-minded of the Gospels (maybe even less so than John).
Edwin
- Status