Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lintrap · 11-10-2009, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen T-B

Just recently I have been pointed to
http://bibletastic.com/

which reminded me of this passage in Matthew
Matthew 27:51-53 (New King James Version)
51 "Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split,
52 "and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many."

What does it take to believe the Bible records real events?

It says the exact number of 53. If one was making up a lie, you would make it an even number like 60 or 50 or 40, not 53.

If this event did not happen, then what was the writer thinking? Obviously he knew no such thing ever happened so why would he risk ridicule or even death lying about such matters? If it's so ridiculous, people would've been shouting, "What a loon! No saints got out of their graves and walked around! He's delusional! What a stupid religion!" and religion would've died out lightning quick.

Josephus wouldn't report this because it would be EVIDENCE for Christianity and Josephus was a Jew. Why would he want to prove a religion is right that he himself does not follow? He would've looked like a fool to the people. This is why most non-christian historians back then didn't write about Jesus or the miracles - because they knew it made them look bad and they had to cover it up.

Ask yourself if Hindu apologists would report Jesus miracles if it happened near them. Of course they wouldn't because it would make them look bad.

So your proof is that no one disputed them: and that anyone who did dispute them did so for religious reasons. How can anyone possibly disprove that within the narrow parameters you set up?

Also, you probably need to realize that this was one non-eyewitness account written possibly a century after the events described. If this was such a great evangelical tool, why would Paul not have mentioned it in his epistles, written much sooner?

Additionally, if you read any sort of old biography, you will know that embellishments were added all the time and accepted, since these were superstitious and ignorant people with little to no understanding of the universe.

Also, the majority of Christian texts weren't compiled until around the time Christianity became the number one religion, so that is why it became a huge religion, not anything to do with the historical context of the Jesus story.

Myth Busted

Self-Mutation · 11-10-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lintrap

Quote:

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

It says the exact number of 53. If one was making up a lie, you would make it an even number like 60 or 50 or 40, not 53.

If this event did not happen, then what was the writer thinking? Obviously he knew no such thing ever happened so why would he risk ridicule or even death lying about such matters? If it's so ridiculous, people would've been shouting, "What a loon! No saints got out of their graves and walked around! He's delusional! What a stupid religion!" and religion would've died out lightning quick.

Josephus wouldn't report this because it would be EVIDENCE for Christianity and Josephus was a Jew. Why would he want to prove a religion is right that he himself does not follow? He would've looked like a fool to the people. This is why most non-christian historians back then didn't write about Jesus or the miracles - because they knew it made them look bad and they had to cover it up.

Ask yourself if Hindu apologists would report Jesus miracles if it happened near them. Of course they wouldn't because it would make them look bad.

So your proof is that no one disputed them: and that anyone who did dispute them did so for religious reasons. How can anyone possibly disprove that within the narrow parameters you set up?

Also, you probably need to realize that this was one non-eyewitness account written possibly a century after the events described. If this was such a great evangelical tool, why would Paul not have mentioned it in his epistles, written much sooner?

Additionally, if you read any sort of old biography, you will know that embellishments were added all the time and accepted, since these were superstitious and ignorant people with little to no understanding of the universe.

Also, the majority of Christian texts weren't compiled until around the time Christianity became the number one religion, so that is why it became a huge religion, not anything to do with the historical context of the Jesus story.

Myth Busted

No reason to conclude the Gospels were written a century after the events unless you're an atheist with an agenda.

Why couldn't they have been written earlier?

I'll give you an example of the bias:

Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple. The temple was destroyed. Biased atheists say that the Gospels were written AFTER the temple went down. Christians say it was written and predicted beforehand.

Skeptics say impossible no man can predict the future. Christians say he was God, not man. Atheists say there is no such thing as God and so we go around and around in circle after circle with nothing ever getting accomplished.

Mageth · 11-10-2009, 01:20 PM

Self-M, you can take your above argument and reverse it, e.g. "No reason to conclude the Gospels were written soon after the events unless you're a Christian with an agenda..." and so on. If you did so, you would see that the reverse argument is essentially the same, and its charge of bias would be the essentially the same, and either way the argument carries about the same weight, which is not much at best.

Bottom line is, your argument is not persuasive in the least.

lintrap · 11-10-2009, 01:26 PM

The claim of the timeframe of the Gospels is claimed not only by secular scholars but also by Christian ones. It is not a question of religion, it is a question of intellectual honesty.

Godless Raven · 11-10-2009, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

Quote:

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

What a minor, yet HUGE error on my part!

But my point still stands.

What point? Without the "exact number of 53", you don't have one.

Oh come on now Mageth! "exact number of 53" was the strongest arguement put forth by SM that I've read since he started posting on here.

Be nice!

lintrap · 11-10-2009, 01:52 PM

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

This verse from John may look silly at first, until you realize that exactly . . .

I am mostly kidding, man.

Kapyong · 11-10-2009, 02:05 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

It says the exact number of 53. If one was making up a lie, you would make it an even number like 60 or 50 or 40, not 53.

Such as Paul saying 500 people 'saw' Christ ?

K.

ChristMyth · 11-10-2009, 02:12 PM

Now, now people. SM might just have something here. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

Now he mentions the number 53, which must have some sort of significance so let's see:

Well, in Mark 8, we have"

Quote:

And he commanded the people to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them; and they did set them before the people.

7And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set them also before them.

8So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets

A "few" could mean three so we would have five loaves and three fishes...hey, 53! (of course the other gospels say two fish, but if you have three fish then you must have two fish as well. The authors just didn't mention the other fish since they didn't really eat it.)

We also have in Luke 12 this passage:

Quote:

Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three

Hey, wait a minute...there it is again, five and three. 53!!! (overlook the number two since it isn't relivant to my discussion)

You know, 5+3=8

One God + Seven days of creation = 8!!!

You know, SM, I really think your on to something here!

I'm convinced.

lintrap · 11-10-2009, 02:15 PM

John 3:16

6+3-1

8 ! ! ! ! ! !

This is pretty convincing!

Mageth · 11-10-2009, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

It says the exact number of 53. If one was making up a lie, you would make it an even number like 60 or 50 or 40, not 53.

Such as Paul saying 500 people 'saw' Christ ?

K.

Obviously, 500 is an exact number! So what if it just happens to be even?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-10-2009, 01:20 PM	#13
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Self-M, you can take your above argument and reverse it, e.g. "No reason to conclude the Gospels were written soon after the events unless you're a Christian with an agenda..." and so on. If you did so, you would see that the reverse argument is essentially the same, and its charge of bias would be the essentially the same, and either way the argument carries about the same weight, which is not much at best. Bottom line is, your argument is not persuasive in the least.

11-10-2009, 01:26 PM	#14
lintrap Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Vancouver, Wa Posts: 864	The claim of the timeframe of the Gospels is claimed not only by secular scholars but also by Christian ones. It is not a question of religion, it is a question of intellectual honesty.

11-10-2009, 01:52 PM	#16
lintrap Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Vancouver, Wa Posts: 864	53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. This verse from John may look silly at first, until you realize that exactly . . . I am mostly kidding, man.

11-10-2009, 02:15 PM	#19
lintrap Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Vancouver, Wa Posts: 864	John 3:16 6+3-1 8 ! ! ! ! ! ! This is pretty convincing!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.